digg

Join DiggAbout

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

SIRIUS, XM SET TO CONFIRM MERGER PLAN TODAY

nypost.com — Satellite radio operators Sirius and XM are expected to announce their long-awaited merger today, according to a source familiar with the deal. The two sides were locked in negotiations over the weekend trying to hammer out a final agreement with an eye toward going public with the merger today in Washington, D.C., where XM is based...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • GunbladeVIII, on 10/12/2007, -38/+98What a disaster this would be. Competition has made each service so much better. Interoperability and legal issues aside, a merger that leaves only one satellite radio company would undoubtedly leave to price increases and the death of my favorite XM channels as the two companies combine programming.

    Let's hope the FCC does something good for once, and does to this plan what they did to the DirecTV/DISH Network plan: kill it.
    • fusionFactor, on 10/12/2007, -34/+32Frankly, I can't wait for the merger to occur. As an ex-Silverado driver (and thus ex-XM listener) and now current Charger driver (I'm forced to listen to Sirius), I have to say the programming on XM was much better. 15 months is too far away.
    • ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -18/+56But there IS competition.

      They're basically being forced to merge due to the emergence of free HD radio. Of course, it's not the same, but it's close enough.

      Personally, I never subscribed to satellite radio 'cause I couldn't decide which service to try, so I took option C. None of the above. With a single provider where I don't have to choose between O&A vs. Howard Stern, I might actually give it a shot.
    • PatrickFisher, on 10/12/2007, -29/+23I disagree with you. There are some things where competition is not efficient. Think of what would happen if there were two sewage companies competing for your business. You'd have to have two sets of sewage pipes going to every house.

      Satellite radio is similar. Won't it be much more efficient to only need one signal in any one area? Does that not mean half the number of satellites?

      The other thing is that we don't need satellite radio. We can always go back to FM or HD radio (as scornforsega said). So, in reality, there is a lot of competition. If you really MUST have the stations that are on satellite radio, then you should be willing to pay a premium for them. If that premium gets too high, then you stop using the service. That's how supply and demand works.
    • root1657, on 10/12/2007, -9/+51@patrickfisher

      even if the companies merge with all their might, they still have to maintain 2 sets of satellites and the local transmitters for the places that have them. The hardware is not physically compatible at this time, so even if they started to merge their hardware somehow, all current sets (millions) are specification dependent.

      This is one time we can say for certain, it just wont blend!
    • TheBeaver, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12They've still got plenty of competition. They have to compete against the AM/FM radio, cd players, and mp3 players. Also in the home, they have to compete with digital cable and satellite TV since they both offer music channels. They won't have a competitor that does exactly what they do, but there's plenty of alternatives to keep them in check.
    • sjgmoney, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33Thumbs down for Gunblade for being dead wrong. Market forces will dictate prices, satellite radio's main competition is still "Free" radio. One could argue that the exact opposite might occur; because of the cost savings involved in merging these two companies prices might actually go down.

      Certainly not having to bid against each other for NFL, baseball, NASCAR rights etc is going to improve their cost structure.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12untrue gunblade, they still have to compete with terrestrial radio. If satellite radio gets out of hand, people will drop them in droves.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"Think of what would happen if there were two sewage companies competing for your business. You'd have to have two sets of sewage pipes going to every house."

      Bad example. In such a situation, a smart city/town/community would have bids from competing sewage companies submitted and take vote on which to go into negotiations with. Or each house could have individual sewage tanks with companies competing for installation and/or maintenance...just like it's done in smaller towns and rural communities.

      The point is: comparing satellite radio to sewage companies is comparing apples to turds. :P
    • kyote, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8The fact that the gov't has the power to stop and/or interfere with free enterprise is the problem. I shouldn't have to get the government to approve what I do in a "free marketplace."
    • Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Government interference is ALWAYS bad. This is the reason why multi-billion dollar companies grip the government and use it to thwart competition, because agencies like the FCC step in and try to make arguments about competition. Competition is inherent unless you provide the companies with a means to stop it, for example, by establishing a government entity that is staffed by individuals who are picked from elected officials and giving that entity the discretion of choosing what minimums and maximums there are to compete in a specific industry. It's bureacracy at its finest, and it's what AT&T learned as soon as the government started f'ing with it.

      Companies that get regulated by the government have a very direct incentive to control the government, which is why they invest so much money in lobbying, politicians, and etc. The US is a great place for corporations to control their markets and to prevent their customers (ie, us) from having true alternatives, all they have to do is give the public the guise that their vote matters, there is no such thing as an oligopoly, and that regulation is a great thing. Which of the three did you fall for?
    • nx01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7What will most likely have to happen is that one of them will have to agree to give up one of the radio licenses they own. the FCC only granted two licenses for satellite radio, and Sirius and XM own them. They would most likely need to sell of the license and any hardware that would be dependent on it (satellites, ground based equipment, etc.).

      Agreeing to sell by a certain date, would also allow a company like WorldSpace to easily move into the US market, and keep regulators at bay. WorldSpace is actually the largest provider of satellite radio in the world, but no licenses have been available in the US for them to purchase.

      I'm surprised no has mentioned this, but what would the possibility be of a wireless provider purchasing the equipment, and rolling out a satellite based phone service? Seems as though a company like Verizon or even a cell manufacturer (Apple anyone?) may be a likely suitor as well provided it's even technologically possible.
    • nowayhoseb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Mel knows what he is doing. It is XM that has to be worried.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Also, before anyone starts hollering "ANTITRUST!!!", you have to know what antitrust legislation really does. AT legislation is NOT there to stop monopolies from forming...it's there to stop companies that are monopolies from using their monopoly power to invade and take over other markets. THAT is why Microsoft ended up in their suit. They used their de facto monopoly over the OS market to try to take over the browser market.

      As for satellite radio...if this new "satellite monopoly" suddenly started buying up terrestrial stations, ala Clear Channel, then THAT would be an abuse of antitrust and would open them up for a lawsuit.

      Just an FYI, people.
    • pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5There is competition: terrestrial radio, iPods, internet radio, as well as, to an extent, every other form of news and entertainment. Competition is defined by the service, not the technology.

      If they merge, I may actually give it a shot, but as it is now, I'm just forced to choose which half of the channels I want to pay for. It's not really a choice I feel like making.
    • wheresmysocks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16XM confirms it.
      http://xmradio.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=1423
    • mrch3w, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@nx01

      satelite phone is a little impracticle because of the long transmission time. you end up with a slight time lag inside of communications, which most people can't stand. Now, maybe if the changed over to those LEO blimps they could get around this, but antenna work so well right now that they'll stick with that for a while i'm sure.
    • foofightrs777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@fusionfactor.

      You aren't forced to listen to anything. If you liked XM that much more than Sirius there are car kits which can be installed. It's rather self centered to say that a merger which eliminates competition in the industry and forces a monopoly on millions of people is a good thing when weighed against your own personal convenience.
    • mikew101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Personally I'm glad they are merging.

      I have Sirius satelite radio, and I chose it due to Sirius having the NFL, and NBA. However with that said I still am a baseball fan, but the NFL and NBA are rated higher to me forcing me to choose Sirius. Now I will be able to have all of the content.
    • geoffrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yorn makes some great points.

      If you want money out of politics, get the politics out of money.
    • PeteLP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@sjgmoney

      "Market forces will dictate prices, satellite radio's main competition is still "Free" radio. One could argue that the exact opposite might occur; because of the cost savings involved in merging these two companies prices might actually go down.
      Certainly not having to bid against each other for NFL, baseball, NASCAR rights etc is going to improve their cost structure. "

      sjgmoney is exactly right.

      Better cost structures mean better content, since they absolutely need to grow their customer base far better than they have. Far greater content choices will benefit the consumer AND the companies. It's a win/win.

      Note the evidence: They're growth has been very disappointing compared to early expectations. They're still losing money by the truckload because of huge competition from iPods (90 million sold vs 14 mil sat radio subs) and other car entertainment, and also because of the tremendous costs for content due to their content bidding wars (500 mil deals to pro sports and stern etc) . Given the disappointing financials, a merger may be the only cost effective way to further improve content and choice, and improve their growth.

      Costs will also go down by eliminating competition for the car mfr deals and reduced duplication in development of advanced technologies.

      IMO it's very good for the consumer AND the investor.
    • VampTheChamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
    • afreakinninja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Uhm, why the ***** would they dump programs from either side? This puts ALL of the programs on the same service. Until they DO show some signs of raising prices, which is only retarded consumer paranoia right now, this is the best news for satellite radio users since the rivals were created.
    • MelGibson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2For those arguing that costs will go down, they are correct in the sense that this merger will result in efficiencies. The problem however, is that there will not be any incentive to pass those savings on to customers. The main thing that disciplines pricing is competition. There won't be any competition left here.

      For those who claim that these companies compete with "free" radio, that is only true in general sense. From an antitrust perspective, that argument is loser. Ask yourself this. If you want uncensored, virtually commercial free digital radio, what are your choices? Free radio isn't an option.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The alternative is that they both go out of business within the next 12 months due to zero profits.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Melgibson..from a legal standpoint, their competition IS terrestrial radio. Because that ARE their competition, and one that is destroying them in the market right now.

      There is a reason why this merger ishappening. Because neither if profitable. So many people signed up for 1 year deals at reduced prices and then didn't renew at the regular prices. They overpaid for EVERYTHING, from Howard Stern to the NHL, to NASCAR, etc.
    • dissident, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This would be much worse for xm fans then sirius fans, because you know if they did merge they'd keep sirius's music style which takes after FM with limited playlists and lots of repeats. Personally I think the companies are better off separate, but better they merge then go bankrupt.
    • RandomEngy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed, I hope this thing gets shot down hardcore. Free radio is not a substitute for satellite radio. As for those people saying "let them merge and see what happens", know that it's a lot cheaper to prevent a merger than regulate a monopoly and cheaper still than having to break up a monopoly.

      And if you learned about monopolies in an economics course instead of reading about the Microsoft anti-trust case, you'd realize that we DO try and prevent all monopolies. There's plenty of cases of prevented mergers and a handful of explicit monopoly break-ups. Sometimes (like in the case of Windows), it's a natural monopoly that can't be broken up. So they have to settle for regulating it and making sure the power isn't abused... too much.
    • retral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can only see this happening one way: G4 / TechTV
  • IceBurrg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+57I can't wait for the Howard Stern vs. Opie & Anthony war. This should be fun...
    • FilteringCraig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Management wouldn't be able to afford to let them battle for real. The merged form of this company would need both shows' audiences to be successful. I bet the relationship between Stern's channel and O&A's channel would hardly change. They will both still broadcast from separate locations. The only difference would be that you could pick up both shows with the same antenna and receiver.
    • g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I would expect Stern to make a gesture of friendship towards O&A if this merger happens. He wouldn't consider them enemies anymore and wouldn't want to carry on the radio *****. I don't know how O&A would react to that though. But Stern definitely is in the habit of making friends out of old enemies, I know he would love to be Oprah's friend.
    • sedo1800, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I invented radio robin... LOL
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Hoohoo! Tell'em Fred
    • mrrdlc, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Opie and Anthony is brutally bad. Not even in the least bit funny.
    • yeahbuddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The fanboyism will never die. Exhibit 1:

      http://www.xmfan.com/viewtopic.php?t=76901

      LOLZ!!
    • Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I don't see Stern allowing them to exist. Stern will either gag order them AGAIN or threaten to quit like a baby unless they are fired. Although Opie and Anthony is a much funnier show, because they aren't a one trick pony with sex related things as the only "shocking" thing they do, they will be sacrificed for this merger.
    • joel8x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5O&A have an upper hand in negotiations in this deal as they have jobs on regular radio to fall back on, as well as being the most listened to channel on XM. The only problem is that Mel Karmazin is an napoleon complexed a-hole who hates them, and will do anything Howard Stern says. This will be interesting to say the least, but I'm not happy about the prospect of having "premium channels" again, which is hinted at in the XM press release. I hope this gets squashed.
    • xenubaba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doesn't matter. Both are crap. Look at their share prices.
      http://www.stockalicious.com/stock/siri
      http://www.stockalicious.com/stock/xmsr
  • tracerrx, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3Not to mention that us XM guys get playboy radio back...
    • FilteringCraig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+47Playboy chicks = good. Playboy chicks TALKING on radio = not good.
    • razrielle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Playboy radio, I feel, is the dumbed down version of love line
    • FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah Playboy radio isn't all that spectacular, I mean its ok, but not fantastic. Sometimes late at night it gets ok with the Night Calls but other then that, its rather boring.
    • catfud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Playboy Radio hasnt been on XM in a very long time
    • g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Playboy radio is dumb. You can't see their *****.
  • TheTusch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"Talks were still going on at press time and the deal could fall apart at any time."

    Looks like the writer is trying to save himself if this all falls apart.
    • Bacchanal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't see why not. It fell apart a couple months ago. And no matter what happens in negotiation, the FCC can still come in and put the hammer down on the whole deal, anyway.

  • ucbmoose, on 10/12/2007, -25/+35Hoo hoo Robin, I invented satellite radio. It should be called Sternellite radio, tell 'em Fred!
    • 98acura, on 10/12/2007, -17/+26I uhh gotta take the uhh howie copter to the hamptons ro-bin... hoo hoo me me me me me!
    • AmnestyGenocide, on 10/12/2007, -17/+16Uhh, I invented mergers, robin hoo hoo

      Thankfully Howie only works 3 months out of the year.. won't have to worry about hearing his dumb played-out show while skipping through channels (if this even happens).

      FRUUUUNKISSS
    • g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8I don't listen to O&A, so I don't make comments about them. You don't listen to the Stern show (obvious since none of your snipes make any sense, I assume you're parroting O&A) so why don't you shut your ***** holes. And if you're parroting O&A, why are they spending any time talking about Stern? Why are they concerned? Stern hasn't mention O&A since they sent the O&A Army (consisting of 2 people) to the Stern Show farewell on the last day at KRock.

      You guys leave me with the impression that O&A can't get thru a show without trash-talking Stern. Maybe on Friday I'll download their show and see what they do. Yes it does piss me off the Stern takes off on Fridays. He's trying to get Bubba the Love Sponge to fill in on Friday mornings and Bubba doesn't do it for me. I guess you gotta be a redneck or something.
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -4/+52 person O&A Army. Hah, that's rich...I guess two people can do a LOT of damage..

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O&A_Army
    • g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2After reading that wiki I'm even more convinced that the merger is gonna make them set all radio ***** aside and become friendly towards each other. Both radio shows are geared toward the same mentality. I believe they will combine their efforts to take down Rush Limblah and Sean Hannity. And now we can get rid of Bubba the Love Sponge and his stupid *****. The guys whole show is strippers and nascar.
    • Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@ g30ph

      Do you listen to Howard Stern? He has mentioned them several times since he went to satellite. Also, being a former fan of Howard Stern and a current and lifelong fan of Opie and Anthony, I can tell you why one is funnier than the other. Howard Stern was the most hilarious thing on radio, until his divorce. Once he lost his wife, his show went WAY downhill. He still had his funny moments, but it turned into nothing but sex related "shock" material. He because so phony and so monotone, that his show was almost boring to listen to. O&A have a lot more going for them, they are younger, they have Jim Norton who is hilarious, they are innovative. Then Howard Stern copies them and he claims he is the first to do the things. He is the first to go to satellite radio? He is the first to introduce video cameras into the studio and stream them online? Basically, the reason I like O&A and dislike Howard, is because Howard thinks SOOOO much of himself, while O&A know they are just a couple of douchebags like the rest of us and mention it almost everyday.
    • slimbooty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Maybe O&A will finally get popular after the merger:
      http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22howard+stern%22+%2C%22opie+and+anthony%22&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all
    • 98acura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@g30ph

      Even if the bbbbboys made up with howie (which wont happen) they will not work for that ***** mel karmazin again...

      If this merger happens, they will get themselves fired (can't wait to hear it because itll be crazy, and im gonna miss em in the mornings)
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3For the guy who posted the Google Trends link, lets not forget that Opie and Anthony went very quietly over to XM from their 2 year hiatus. Stern whored himself out during is show over and over again, talking about the Sirius move. Even now, lots of people don't know Opie and Anthony are even on XM. XM really needs to work on their marketing campaign, pushing O&A, since that is exactly what Sirius is doing with Stern. But that doesn't seem to be helping them that much, so who knows.

      Stern was also on FM radio back when that trend chart started, before Satellite radio took off, but after O&A were already on it.
  • crycry, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21From Wikipedia (source is NYT)

    January 18: The Federal Communications Commission rules that licensing regulations would prohibit a possible merger of XM and rival Sirius Satellite Radio. Recent remarks by top officials within both companies have hinted at a possible move to join forces to stave off billion-dollar losses associated with increased competition between the two services
    • fusionFactor, on 10/12/2007, -28/+3Wikipedia? Bury...
    • aahpandasrun, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12Wrong. Source is NYT
    • fusionFactor, on 10/12/2007, -28/+3Then why even mention that it's from Wikipedia? Again...Wikipedia = crap. Now I bury you! Hahahaha!!!
    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Good catch, I thought I remembered something about the FCC blocking this deal. Frankly I think that they SHOULD merge, it sure would be nice to have one operating standard for the two services.

      Of course this will just make it EASIER for Satellite Radio to be controlled by Clear Channel and to meet the same fate as terrestrial radio - too many commercials, crappy bland programming, etc.
    • sjgmoney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The full comment was CURRENT regulations prohibit such a merger but they could apply for a change in those regs. The FCC will have little say in this merger, the FTC (Federal Trade Com.) will.
    • sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It was a blurb to the press by a commissioner, not a statement from the FCC itself, and the comissioner backed away from it a couple days later.
  • laterthandawn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Oh good, so much for competition. Rate hike!
    • holzp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6When satellite radio was planned there was no real competition to the format, just traditional radio. Now that the iPod has basically created a whole new distribution medium for not only music but talk (Podcasts) and HD Radio is picking up steam I think the two companies have a legitimate need to merge and may be able to justify that the content is the business and the competition is against the different delivery systems.
  • jared9985, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51Take it easy on the caps. THERE IS NO REASON TO YELL A HEADLINE.
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42That's so people on dialup can read it.
    • goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2BURIED AS LAME FOR WRITING LIKE THIS!!!111elevnty!!
  • ZakColeman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16He is just like a paper boy in the good ol' days, EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!
  • gregmo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8This is just a bad idea from a consumer's standpoint
    • foshizol, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I totally agree. I'm a subscriber to Sirius and I would really hate for them to merge. Competition always produces a superior product in the end. Not to mention, if there's only one radio satellite company prices are going to go up for subscriptions and radios. Hopefully the Feds won't let this go through.

      Although if it doesn't I'll really feel sorry for Howard poor guy barely makes enough money as it is.
    • AmnestyGenocide, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2True, though I heard Howie is in the process of inventing a money tree that will grow million dollar bills. It will greatly compliment his other invention: a year of work in 3 months.

      -Steve from Yellowstone
    • wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18In other news... XM/Sirius is now the new AT&T
    • Shadow6363, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And AT&T is the new Cingular....and Cingular is the new AT&T....
  • pamon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1FCC has already stated they'd block this merger... Oh well... waste more taxpayer money on it.
    • Tenareth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The FCC controls the airwaves, the FTC is the group that should deal with this. And isn't it absolutely stupid for the FCC to speak, after they allowed ClearChannel to be created?? Are there even two radio groups left?

  • codyman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Good thing they used all caps because otherwise I would have never believed it
  • ntwrkguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17am i really the only one who finds sirius programming to be far superior to XM when it comes to classic rock? that was the main reason i switched from XM to sirius. i was tired of hearing the same 50 classic rock songs on XM.
    • scubuddy, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11SIRIUS is superior to XM in nearly every way. Re: the O&A vs. Stern war mentioned previously, hasn't that really already been solved considering since Stern joined SIRIUS, XM has been in serious trouble? SIRIUS is now the leader in the industry and XM knows if they don't merge they will go out of business. O&A's impact was nil, Stern has turned the tables between the two services completely. The war was won the day Stern decided to go to SIRIUS.
    • holzp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@scubuddy

      Except Baseball, that is a dominating feature of the XM programming. It is the largest of the sports that are "radio friendly", and for anyone who is a fan of an out of market team it is almost essential for getting broadcasts. While XM never released figures for how many subscribers were driven by this programming (unlike Stern on Sirius) I have to believe that this was one of the major things keeping subscribers going to XM over Sirius.
    • Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Agreed. I picked Sirius over XM about a year ago. I could care less about Stern -- I listen to the music. In my region (Upstate NY) the regular radio sucks. I'm in between two markets at HDradio.com, but best case I can receive fewer than 10 channels, offering up such gems as Country, Christian, Spanish, Urban, and Jazz. That's it.

      This is about content, not format. As a consumer I want options. In my region regular radio and HD radio just aren't cutting it.
    • AmnestyGenocide, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@scubuddy

      You are an idiot. If either company is in trouble its Sirius. O&A's impact was far from nil. They were a very significant factor in the steady increase in subs, and rising stock prices. In combination with the Free FM deal, this has only become more of a factor in the success of XM.

      Also, Sirius has the problem of all of the car accidents caused by Sirius units blocking the drivers view, and falling into their laps and breaking femurs.
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"SIRIUS is now the leader in the industry and XM knows if they don't merge they will go out of business."

      I'd go check those facts again. Just looking at the article shows quite a bit...

      "Shares in both companies did trade on heavy volume and ended the session higher, with Sirius gaining 10 cents to close at $3.70 and XM jumping a dollar to $13.98."

      $3.70 per share vs. $13.98 per share? Hmm, yeah, XM is really hurting compared to Sirius, aren't they?

      Also, XM Hardware is about a generation and a half ahead of Sirius's hardware. Sirius took a gamble by paying Stern the $500,000,000 for 5 years, and they have yet to see the turnaround they were expecting. The one advantage that Sirius really does have over XM is the NFL Exclusive. Sirius pulled an EA on that one, while XM continued to snatch up other exclusive deals.
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Forgot to add this..

      I've been a Stern listener for 5 years, then went O&A when they went to XM, and I have to say, I definitely prefer O&A nowadays. I am definitely not happy with the Free FM move. My uncensored show went from a 2 minute commercial break every hour and a half or so, to a sensored show with 3 5-6 minute commercial breaks within my 20 minute commute. Pisses me right off..
  • mjrjr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I have a feeling I'm going to get hosed with the $500 lifetime subscription I bought for Sirius a year ago.
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And I expect that by the time I'm 70, the company which promised me the lifetime supply of toothbrush head replacements for the infomercial electric toothbrush will be gone as well.

      I'm not real sure how people are able to place enough faith in brand new companies - let alone brand new technologies - to believe that anything "lifetime" is actually forever. Sheesh, I won't even upgrade my Vonage billing from monthly to yearly, because I still don't know if they're going to be around in a year.
    • spitcoff, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1That "Lifetime" membership you bought is only good for the life of your reciver if you were ever to decide to update your equipment you will have to get a new membership
    • razrielle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@spitcoff
      Actually its good for the lifetime of Three receivers, i think the fee to change receivers is 15 dollars
    • ToolShedd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The fee to move your lifetime Sirius sub to another radio is actually $75..... for now...
  • theseanman66, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3My friend has Sirius and whenever I drive around with him it's really aggravating how poor the quality of programming is on Sirius. That service has no personality whatsoever, everything about Sirius is low rent and cheesy. I've had XM for three years and while I originally bought it for Baseball, I have found the variety and quality of the other programming to be top-notch. Also, XM's music playlist is deeper than you'll find on Sirius. I don't think the merger should be allowed to go through because of what the lack of competition will do to subscription rates. Sirius has spent wayy too much on "exclusive" programming and now they have an unsustainable business model. Share prices are an indication of that systemic flaw. They should be allowed to flounder, that's competition! Sirius needs this merger to stay alive. I don't think they deserve the life preserver.
  • ScareCrow87, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I"ve been a happy XM subscriber since it's inception. However, had I realized that Siirus had the NFL contract when I picked up my XM (and locked in 5 years of service), I would probably gone that route. MLB is okay (and a great deal for XM subscribers who are heavy into baseball), but I've spent many a Sunday afternoon on the road wishing I could pick up a game!
  • renegadeafk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1HOLY *****/CAPS
  • jpb0104, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I love Sirius and want MLB. Could be good for me.
  • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'd have gotten Sirius a year ago, but I haven't found a good Sirius radio (hardware) yet. I need something for the job site and the boxes they offer are cheap and not rechargeable. I don't know why there isn't a job site radio that's rechargeable, plays cds, has built in flash memory, usb, satellite, and plays all the formats (ogg, aac, etc). Is that too much to ask?
    • hansonc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yes.

      I'll give you that it'd be nice to have but not likely to ever exist.
    • g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3they are very slowly coming out with new hardware. Compared to whats available for XM, sirius looks pathetic. Car radios are easy, you just get any head unit you like that supports sirius and you get the tuner for it. I wouldn't recommend any FM modulator *****.
      They now have a similar solution for home, a tuner that plugs into your receiver with Toslink or RCA, and it comes with a very nice remote with an LCD display to show you the channels and the text they scroll for that channel. It's a great Home/Office thing but not for an outdoor construction site situation.
      But the boombox radios are garbage.
  • spitcoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10as some one who has had both Sirius and XM i hope they keep the Sirius content and stations which are far superior to XM
    • g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like the new 90's station they added, except I've already heard Pearl Jam's Daughter 4 times in 2 days, and they are clearly just choosing random tracks off of Nirvana's Bleach because Nirvana is like the defacto grunge band of the 90's.
    • joel8x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Opinions are like assholes....

      Honestly, if they keep the god awful hack radio DJ's that Sirius currently employs, I will have to dust off my iPod again.
  • theseanman66, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4It's 2007. Does anyone actually still read CAPS louder that they read lower case text?
  • Perno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12This merger is confirmed on
    http://abcnews.go.com
    • theseanman66, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1I stopped reading out loud to myself in First Grade.
  • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I feel like these satellite radios are something thats been crammed down your throat for years now and I'm just not interested in buying either. They sign all sorts of business deals so the things end up in new cars, planes (like airtran), in every circuit city store (free trial!!), etc, so we become accustomed to seeing them everywhere and think theyre normal to have. Just get an mp3 player and listen to whatever you want at your convenience. No monthly charge. I don't care what they do, I'm never buying one, and I'm never buying a new car that has one in it so it can sit there unused for the lifespan of the car. Sorry, that has nothing to do with the merger but I am tired of hearing about these things.
    • Mufflegrump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You would *not* buy a car, that you otherwise wanted, because of a *feature* of the radio? It is at all possible that, maybe, your priorities are just slightly out of whack? :)
  • theamazingkort, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14No sir, I don't like it.


    I chose Sirius over XM because XM blows ass. Now I'm going to have to be subjected to XM's crap channels whether I like it or not? What kind of ***** is that?
    • quailtamer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Then don't listen to them. Calm down and see what the product is before complaining about it.
  • hockeysmurf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This blows, we need more competition, especially when it comes to satellite / space related services.
  • humpingmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3just waiting for all the antitrust monkeys to start screaming...
  • markp93, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Should it be called SeXM ?
  • Ryokurin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Two questions...

    Why would they announce on president's day when the markets are closed? Its a easy way for some shareholders to make immediate money when one of the stocks rise due to the announcement. It wont much if at all now that people have time to think about it.

    The story says $7 billion will be saved annually. How when both companies expenses were half of that last year?
    • davinic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This well-known merger has been built into the price of the stocks for weeks, if not months. The insiders will still get their money....
    • bigtreble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0$7 billion cost savings? Maybe they can avoid duplicating royalty fees...and pass savings onto consumers:

      "November 16, 2006 Sirius and XM Satellite Radio may have to pay more to broadcast music as the two companies try to negotiate a new royalty fee agreement. Sirius and XM currently pay 4% to 7% of their total revenues for licensing fees. The Copyright Royalty Board is seeking 10% to 23% of music revenues for artists."

      from FinancialWire Nov 2006
  • walt1028, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Just as long as O&A and RnF and Baseball stay I don't care. Well I have both services any way and it would be nice if I could get all the channels on one receiver
  • theseanman66, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Sirius is for the "Wal Mart" crowd. XM is for the "Target" crowd. You can get essentially the same thing on both services but they are aimed at a slightly different demographic. I think the fact that Sirius has both NASCAR, NFL and Howard Stern speaks volumes about what they think of their typical customer. I'm surprised they picked the name "Sirius" but then again, you can say it even if you can't spell it.
    • Perno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9XM was the one that came out with the lower price initially, so that would probably put them in the "Wal-Mart" category. I wonder which one you have, XM-Fanboy. I've only had XM in my life and I cancelled it since the content was poor, and that was when it was only $10/mo.
    • dree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yeah, you definitely have that analogy backwards...


      [my opinion] XM's music content is more generic. [/my opinion]
    • Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@theseanmann66 -- you have no idea what you're talking about, fanboy. Take a look at the car manufacturers exclusively partnered with Sirius: http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=Page&cid=1019257316845

      Example: Aston-Martin, Daimler-Chrysler, BMW.
  • thirstyrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One of the interesting aspects of this deal is that is CBC Radio--Canada's public broadcaster--comes out looking pretty smart. When Sirius Canada was set up, CBC invested heavily and bought a 40% ownership share (another 40% is owned by Standard Broadcasting and the remaining 20% by Sirius itself).
  • FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Combine companies? Can XM. We don't need them.

    Hi my name is FrankieB078 and I'm a Sirius Fanboy.
  • ShtrMcGavin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I also prefer Sirius programming over XM's.
    This merger has me a little nervous though because as it was previously mentioned once this happens I'm sure the rates will go up and without competition then next step will be commercials on all the channels. Then subscriptions would drop, rates go up again to compensate, both go out of business and everyone is right back where they started.
    I'm probably over reacting but its still a possibility.
    • walt1028, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1You are over reacting.
    • PeteLP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wrong about pricing going up and the effect of competition.

      The vast majority of subscribers buy integrated in-car units, for which all car mfrs but two offer only one brand. Competition with each other is not what's keeping the price where it is.

      They're not getting anywhere near what they had hoped for in subs and if they raised the price, subscriber growth would only get worse. They want to (and HAVE to) grow this business, and they know the only way to grow it is to offer more content choice and better services. This may be the only cost effective way to do so. Assuming they keep most channels on both services they'll be able to offer two in one units that offer far more variety for slightly more money.

      That's good for us and them.
  • sputza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2XM has the long term contact with the NHL so its good for Sirius users.
    • kimos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I believe you mean, it's good for Sirius users who care about sports...
  • Bacchanal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I've always wondered when a third alternative would occur. I mean, couldn't you make money putting up satellites then leasing bandwidth off them to several smaller broadcasters? I guess I have no idea how much putting a satellite into space costs, but I would love to see a network that's actually an aggregate of several small independent broadcasters.

    We need to put the XM v Sirius "argument" to bed right quick. I'm an XM subscriber, but have listened to Sirius extensively. I can say, without a doubt, that you could line up playlists on 80% of the Sirius and XM channels and they'd be nearly identical. The differences only come in the sports and the shock jocks and the few (and ever fewer) more eclectic stations that each network has. Most of those eclectic stations were axed on both networks when the Canadian market opened, anyway, and I don't expect them to last too long after the merger, but oh well. They'll lose one more sub if they further line themselves up with ClearChannel and awful terrestrial radio broadcasts.
  • slapded, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13frunkus
  • thadiusdean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I'm just worried about losing my precious Left of Center on Sirius...
    • walt1028, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That is one of my favorite stations on Sirius
    • yeahbuddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have both services. LOC is great, but XMU is just as good. Both = heaven!!
  • heyy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2If this happens here is what I predict.

    Howard stays on during the mornings, and Opie and Anthony move to afternoons (they aren't suited for a morning show anyway). On FreeFM terrestrial radio O&A again move to afternoons, Radio Chick moves down to middays, and JV & Elvis the Doghouse move to mornings.

    The Doghouse (Bay Area fans know who they are) will take over mornings in NY and they will dominate in the number 1 radio market as they did in the number 4 radio market for over a decade. They already have an extremely loyal NY and tristate area fanbase that they have gained in just over a year after their move to NY, all from a midday slot.
  • jstevenson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I see this as mostly a good thing. I've had XM for about a year and have been pleased with it. My biggest "complaint" is that while I chose XM for certain content, there is still content on Sirius that I'd like to have, too -- NFL, some public radio not on XM, Stern. To me, their music services are almost interchangable -- I know I'll get beaten up for that comment, but just read through this thread and you'll find some who love Sirius' music and others XM's.

    It's the exclusive content that's the biggest differentiator. If they pull this off right and I'm able to get access to both baseball and football, for example, even for a slight fee increase, that's better to me than subscribing to two services with two receivers, etc. They can merge some of their music format channels, e.g. classic rock, alternative, jazz, etc., taking the best from each. Not sure how they pull it off using incompatible receiver formats and satellites (XM's are geostationary and Sirius' are in an elliptical orbit, I believe), but what would be great is for them to come up with their combined channel lineup and broadcast the same lineup on both systems for some period of time, with the goal of eventually (way out) standardizing on one receiver and satellite system, honoring lifetime agreements, etc.

    Another option would be the satellite or cable television model where their are service tiers or packages, e.g. "basic radio", "premium content", "sports package", etc. That could get pricy, not sure I like it, but at least I could get access to the content I want on a single bill with a single receiver. Just thinking out loud...
    • mrdctaylor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, I'm with you on that. I have XM, but would like some aspects of Sirius. While I don't care about Stern, Sirius seems to have better collegiate sports coverage. My alma mater's basketball games (in the Big 12) are all broadcast on Sirius. :-( I get Sirius music stations on home with my Dish Network subscription and to me the music channels are pretty much a wash between the two companies.
  • jdotter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think a merger is good for both XM and Sirius because 12 million plus satellite subscribers is something advertisers have to consider when spending money when compared to terrestrial radio and advertising dollars are what satellite needs to survive, subscriptions alone won't cut it. I've paid my 12.95 a month for nearly 3 years now with Sirius and I couldn't be happier but I think XM and Sirius need to come to some kind of mutual partnership.

    I am a little concerned the article is from the NY Post and not something a little more reliable and business news oriented like say the WSJ, but one can hope.
  • aserer511, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I hate to sound like a commie, but this union ain't bad. Do we need 2 different providers of essentially pay music/radio/sports?
    • zirconx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yea, and why do we even need more than one TV channel? Each one already has sports, sitcoms, cartoons, etc. etc.
    • czimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ zirconx

      Yeah that's not the point. I love Sirius. I have been a Sirius subscriber from the start, but let's be honest: Both companies have been churning out money to keep themselves a head of one another in what, right now at this point in time, is a niche market. Someday hopefully satellite radio will be 100% mainstream, but right now, it sort of follows the same people who will buy like a HBO or a Cinemax or a Starz package: Those who have it, love it, but its hard to convince someone from the outside to get in. Unlike a TV channel however, satellite radio companies (well Sirius and XM) are throwing A LOT more money out.

      While I'm really on edge, because I love Sirius the way it is, its going to happen. It essentially, needs to happen to keep both companies alive.
  • MelGibson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ texpundit: "Also, before anyone starts hollering "ANTITRUST!!!", you have to know what antitrust legislation really does. AT legislation is NOT there to stop monopolies from forming...it's there to stop companies that are monopolies from using their monopoly power to invade and take over other markets. THAT is why Microsoft ended up in their suit. They used their de facto monopoly over the OS market to try to take over the browser market."

    Actually, two companies can't merge to form a monopoly. See the Clayton and FTC Acts. Take it from an antitrust lawyer, this deal will never get past the DoJ (and yes, they are the ones who will conduct the antitrust review, not the FCC). There will certainly be a break-up fee in this transaction due to antitrust risk. One will have to pay the other if it doesn't pass regulatory muster (which it won't).
  • thedez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Let the mass firings begin!
  • Mofo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How the hell is this going to work? I have sirius in two cars and the sirius hardware and the xm hardware is not compatible with each other. They each have three satellites. How are they going to reprogram all of that with the individual hardware?

    @Melgibson Antitrust seems to be a joke as of late two cases in point, the oil industry and the telecom industry AT&T anyone? I'm not saying you're wrong or disputing you but everyday it seems like there are humongous mergers taking place.
    • MelGibson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mofo, here's the difference. Even after the AT&T merger, there are still other competitors in the markets it competes in. It's not the old monopolist AT&T that was broken up before, because the market is different now. You've got other competitors, such as Verizon, Sprint, etc. Even now, cable companies are in the phone markets. The same can be said of oil. While there are less competitors than there were years ago, which does make it easier to collude, you won't find any oil markets in the U.S. that have only one supplier.

      This merger is a true merger to monopoly. If you want satellite radio, you will have NO option for satellite radio after this merger. They will try to argue that they also compete with regular radio, but that's a BS argument. If the govt. concludes that there is in fact "satellite radio market," as opposed to a larger plain old "radio market," then this merger is dead.
  • theseanman66, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0"Phearce?" I'm sure what car manufacturers were paid to spec Sirius or XM really makes a BIG difference in the overall scheme of things. Most dealers will give you the option to change from one to the other anyway. oh, and while I'm here... The "@" is the symbol for "at", not "and". I think I hear your mom calling you, she wants the computer now.
  • rjgrel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I bet they're going to get rid of the best punk radio station in the world, Fungus 53 :/
  • coldhandshake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I think is bad, hopefully this will be the demise of subscription based radio. It should be free or atleast have a free service. That's one of the few positive things about radio and television is that theres free service.
  • GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4At last, now i dont have to worry about bickering over who has exclusive contracts to what... now i can listen to college football and NFL games on the same carrier...This is a plus! If you want to complain about competition, then you need to get mad at company's able to lock in exclusive deals with products...thats anti-competitive....IE iphone, NFL Sunday Ticket, ect.....
  • theseanman66, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0This is a life-saving deal for Sirius.
  • IchiroBoston, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Its about time, and the gov should not have any problems with them merging. The reality is eventually one will run out of money, there just is not enough money to sell sat radio service at a reasonable price.

    Its not illegal to have a monopoly, but it is illegal to prevent other companies from competing... which XM nor Sirius has done.
    I have both radios right now, and IMO both have almost equal quality but I like Sirius's content more.

    This is something the gov should let the market deal with on its own. The $10-$12 per month is the sweet spot, anything more and people just wont pay and deal with terrestrial radio... so I cant imagine the new merged company will over charge and screw the customer.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 86 of 86 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.