We had a big debate about Sat. Radio a while ago, and I heard some of the same themes in the news recently. The two US competitors of Sat.Radio, Sirius and XM have announced plans to merge. Consumer groups are arguing that this would create a monopoly, but the have responded:
The companies, the only U.S. competitors in the industry, say the Internet and iPods have redefined the entire business since the U.S. Federal Communications Commission issued their licenses in 1997 and ruled they could not combine.
Also of interest:
Regulators have loosened restrictions before in changing markets, from phone service to newspapers, often to help stem losses. Sirius and XM have lost billions of dollars.
Monopoly? Like what? “free radio”??? Cable??? Its a stupid argument. Once these companies merge, you are going to see a lot of cool stuff happening with sat. radio…most of all, your going to see great content.
i agree because people have alternatives. the problem wouldn’t be as urgent as the stuff we’ll likely see with telcos in the future once broadband really spreads.
I tend to agree with this analysis. I had XM for awhile, gave it up because it was basically like regular radio: the music played was the same, and even the channels specified as ‘unsigned’ or ‘alternative’ were fairly repetitive and pop-oriented (unsigned channel was composed of songs from bands that sound like the crap bands that make it to radio anyway, just different band names.) I ended up listening more to free radio and my ipod, deciding maybe my $12 a mo. was better spent towards NPR fundraising or something.
Clear channel formulas are Sirius formulas are XM formulas. There’s nothing new here, just that you have to pay for it, and it’s the same channels no matter where you are (it’s like travelling to New York to eat at McDonald’s)
