For one, consumers do have a range of choices for audio entertainment in the car these days.
Standard analog terrestrial radio, the newer HD Radio, and portable music players like the iPod can all be seen as competition to satellite radio. This is a very valid argument, and it's hard to refute when the majority of new passenger vehicles and SUVs include an "auxiliary input" on their factory radios to make it easy to listen to that entire music collection on the road from your iPod or other MP3 digital music player.
If we remember history, though, federal regulators from satellite TV operators DirecTV Group (NYSE:DTV) and EchoStar Communications (NASDAQ:DISH) back in 2002.
At that time -- and still today -- there was ample competition. Analog (and free) TV, pay TV in for the form of cable television and DVD players were all thought to be the competitors to satellite TV. Federal regulators didn't buy it, and the proposed merger did not happen.
What is different here?
Technically, not a whole lot -- except this argument talks about entertainment while mobile, not stationary. Would a combined Sirius/XM be considered a "monopoly" when so many other consumer choices for in-vehicle entertainment exist?
In one sense, no. But, if we are just in the arena of satellite radio, then yes -- a monopoly would exist in that market after a merger, almost by definition. If programming doesn't fit the needs of consumers and prices go up, a satellite radio consumer would not be able to turn to another satellite radio competitor -- as there wouldn't be one.
News RSS
But if one of them ends up bankrupt off the air won't that create a monopoly too. The way they are burning through cash,I don't think they can both survive alone.
3.
Well the thing that I find completely different of the XM-Sirius deal vs the other echostar- dish deal is in the exclusive content deals. With either TV proviser, I could watch pretty much the same channels on TV and get the same programs. Really, a merger would just mean that there was 1 company, with the exact same programming.
With the XM-Sirius merger, each company has exclusive deals. As it stands, I can hear Oprah on XM, but if I want to hear Howard Stern, I have to subscribe to Sirius. How is this good for me?
I want to listen to both programs on 1 radio with 1 subscription! In the end, with the TV deals, the Satelite companies did not own and operate the TV networks, but with SatRad, XM and Sirius actually own and operate a lot of their content stations. The comaprission may be similar but it really is not exactly the same at all.
4. I would love a merger if the price could be controled. I recently purchased a new car and I had no choice but to take sirius.
I wanted major league baseball but that is on XM. The merger would give the concumer the best of two worlds
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you.
You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted no need to use p or br tags.