XM/Sirus: DOJ approves merger

Discussion in 'General Satellite Discussion' started by mhking, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. scr

    scr AllStar

    Feb 5, 2008
    Thanks for the links.

    I'll be waiting ......
  2. Lee L

    Lee L Hall Of Fame

    Aug 15, 2002
    I have somethign similar in my MINI that allows me to get XM instead of Sirius which is the factory option.

    However, development of all these devices have been on hold ever since the merger announcement. Blitzsafe, who made the first XM Direct adaptors for certain BMW and MINI cars decided to not make them for the next generation of those models or any other model cars. I expect that no one will do anything until teh merger closes, then with development cycles it will be another year or more before they are available.

    I saw an article in the paper this AM that explained that other raidos will be needed and even XM and Sirus expect it will be a year or more before they are out once the merger is approved. If they say a year, I say more like 2.

  3. cartrivision

    cartrivision Hall Of Fame

    Jul 25, 2007
    And whether or not she herself is there doesn't really matter. Her deal with XM called for her to provide about a total of 30 hours of content per year that was actually her. XM just stupidly paid her an outrageous sum of money so that they could say that they had "The Oprah Channel".... as if that was going to sell satellite radio subscriptions.
  4. bmachia

    bmachia AllStar

    Dec 20, 2006
    I really want to have an Open mind here, but I cannot see any benefit to XM subscribers.

    I’ve read the postings about gained Sport channels (i.e. Football), but I like to Watch Football, not listen, and plan my weekends around DirecTV during the game times. I often tune away when the radio announcer starts ranting their personal opinions, proving they cannot do their job with an objective view. Additionally, some announcers don’t know how to describe events happening on the field and we, the listener, miss the action.

    The argument of “Better value for my money” does not hold water, either. Time and time again, we see companies merge and a new billing structure appears. This new and Greater billing structure will have 1 maybe 2 packages costing less, but we will loose programming in the process. In order to hold-on-to (i.e. just keep) the programming we already have costs go up.

    I have also read xmmerger.com, but I do not totally believe the words:
    First, this was written before and Justice Department or Federal Communication Commission decisions and directions concerning the merger. Things will change from this initial posting.
    Second, companies tend to lie. I seem to remember DirecTV articles stating there would be no additional costs for all the additional HD channels on DirecTV. But my bill will increase due to a snappy new HD channel package or the costs will stay the same with loss of programming that was initially free.

    These were the arguments I submitted to the Federal Communications Commission when they asked for public comment. I can only hope they take some of my concerns into consideration. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2417A1.pdf

    My initial thoughts: I’ll figure out a way to play my investment of MP3’s in the car and drop Sat Radio in its entirety. This merger will not offer me anything I want, that I cannot get by other means.

  5. Nick

    Nick Charter Gold Club Member DBSTalk Club

    Apr 23, 2002
    State Attorneys General Challenge Satellite Radio Merger

    The pending merger of XM and Sirius encountered a state-level challenge Thursday, with attorneys general in 11 states writing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin about their concerns with the deal.

    The attorneys general letter sent Thursday took issue with the Justice Department decision handed down earlier in the week that gave the satellite radio companies its clearance to merger operations. ...

    More @ www.skyfiles.com
  6. sadmaker

    sadmaker Mentor

    Sep 16, 2006
    not the best analogy, as satellite tv(at least in its inception) was considered a less expensive alternative to cable... whereas satellite radio is a paid alternative to free radio.

    i thought about sirius for a while, since they have the nfl station. then i signed up for the free internet trial and HEARD the nfl station:nono2:
  7. Tom Servo

    Tom Servo Icon

    Mar 7, 2007
    What would make this merger easier for both camps to swallow is if there were tons of bandwidth floating around on both platforms to allow for easy duplication. But unfortunately the NAB's talking point is right - neither service has any significant reserve bandwidth.

    I can't speak for Sirius directly, but XM cuts off some channels when there's a lot of play-by-play sports channels active. I've heard Sirius has done the same thing for years.

    If each provider is cutting off low rated channels to bring 20 sports games each, what makes anyone think they'll be able to add 20 of the competing service's channels?

    Both providers have subpar sound quality as it is; adding more channels will only make that worse.

    Ideally in my mind they'd have the bandwidth to duplicate just the sports channels & 'hot talk' until the interoperable radios become popular, but an interoperable radio may be 5 years off for all we know. (And yes, on another thread here, someone told me Uncle Mel has a working interoperable radio sitting on his desk. But who knows how long until they can actually put them out to mass market!?)

    Right now I'm a pessimist and anti-merger, because one of the goals post merger will be reducing costs - by eliminating costs. And what better way to eliminate costs than to ditch XM's channels for the Sirius equivalent and vice versa? There's already worry over at The ViRUS (O&A's channel which has much fewer listeners than Stern's Howard 101) that they'll be a channel casualty along with some XM music channels.)

    As has been obvious in this thread, people are very passionate for the most part for one service only. There are several channels on XM that, should they be replaced with Sirius dreck, will lead to my cancellation immedately.
  8. Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    Mar 21, 2002
    Incorrect. Satellite was never viewed as an alternative to cable until the mid to later 90s. Satellite TV was a way to provide multichannel video to rural areas not served by cable. Primestar, the first minidish provider, who was purchased by DirecTV in 1999 was owned by Primestar Partners, a co-op of cable companies. Satellite radio was competition to terrestrial radio out of the gate, satellite TV wasn’t considered competition to cable up until recently, relatively speaking.
  9. Tom_S

    Tom_S Icon

    Apr 9, 2002
    Actually satellite TV was considered an expensive luxury item. Providing Digital quality with the use of expensive receivers. It took many years to get a customer base worthy of competition.

    Satellite radio is in direct competition with terrestrial radio, but at the moment a very small competitor. Free rado has many competitors from Sat radio to MP3 players. They better get their act together.
  10. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Eliminating an XM channel doesn't save a lot of money. Cutting your marketing budget because you're not competing against "The Other Guy" save a metric buttload of money. Getting out of bidding wars for talent saves even more money.
  11. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2003
    Combining the marketing budget will help ... but nothing should be eliminated. They still have to make sales.
  12. gregroberts

    gregroberts New Member

    Sep 29, 2005
    as an XM subscriber - one of the first in New England and an original tester on XM I am seriously disappointed with this

    I wouldn't listen to Howard Stern for free let alone pay to not listen to him

    the fact that Sirius has trouble paying Stern is not a good enough reason to destroy XM which was smart enough to tell him no in the first place

    this is a dark day for XM Radio
  13. gregroberts

    gregroberts New Member

    Sep 29, 2005
    listening to baseball or football on radio is much like listening to porn

    whats the point?

    In my opinion Sirius has inferior programming and too much baggage
  14. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Name a few things you like and I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who would say "what's the point?"
  15. gregroberts

    gregroberts New Member

    Sep 29, 2005
    I always thought that half the fun of baseball and football was watching the play

    you can always turn the volume off if you don't want to listen to John Madden and still enjoy the game
  16. paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    Aug 4, 2006
    Watching it is probably more than half the fun, but there are times that you can't use a TV (like in the car) or the game is just not available to you on TV.

Share This Page

spam firewall