I’ve been an XM customer since day one way back in 2000. I’ve since left my subscription behind when I purchased a new vechicle and went with Sirius for the NFL programing. It’s tough being a Steelers fan in California. My wife still has her XM and I often do an audio comparison. I like XMs sound better, but prefer Sirius’ programming. Both ditched its Christian Alternative stations (another reason I left XM because at the time, Sirius DID have one,) which sucks, but Sirius still weighs better for my needs than XM.

When SvenOnTech received the press release on the proposed merger and we reported on it, I must say, I was bummed to read the release. I do not need a single satellite provider in my wife’s and my car. Nope. Don’t need higher bills and less choice. That’s what you get with a monopoly and that’s what you’ll get with this merger. Thankfully, there are some Democrats and Republicans in Congress that feel the same way. Finally! In fact, they have signed a letter and sent it to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin urging both to stop the merger, stating:

On its face, we believe that sanctioning the marriage of the only competitors in the satellite radio market would create a monopoly, which would be devastating to consumers.

This letter wasn’t just signed by a bunch of junior lawmakers either, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D-NY), and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) where among the 72 names on the letter. Let’s hope the letter comes in loud and clear.

3 Responses to “XM and Sirius Merger in Jeopardy as Lawmakers Tune In and See a Problem”

1. Nabisco Says:
   June 20th, 2007 at 13:19

   Sven, you’ve gotten right to the heart of the matter: a merger between XM and Sirius would create a monopoly, and the only beneficiaries of such a monopoly would be XM and Sirius. I do some work with the NAB, and we’ve created a site that I would encourage you to check out for even more reasons why this merger simply shouldn’t go through.

2. Bill Swanson Says:
   August 21st, 2007 at 10:14

   Sven, you have everything completely wrong. Only one satellite company will survive in this current market, most likely Sirius. The notion of higher prices is a pure negative speculation by the NAB lobby and Congressman with interest in the terrestrial radio industry. Satellite radio is not a necessary commodity (I wish our government would scrutinize mergers of necessary goods like Energy, Oil, etc.). If the merger goes through and subscription fees are raised, subscribers will be lost. This would not be a good thing for the merged satellite company. Actually there is talk of a la cart subscriptions where you could only pick the channels you wish to have, at a lower cost. Imagine having NFL, MLB, NASCAR, Golf, NHL, NBA, and all sporting programming, along with the music, with one satellite company. Satellite radio can not afford to lose subscribers, there will be no “Monopoly”, and there will not be higher prices.

3. Sven Rafferty Says:
   August 23rd, 2007 at 20:55

   Bill, I hear what you’re saying, but in my experience, every time a market dwindled down to one player, the interest of the customer was never on the radar.

   Sirius has lots of bills it can not handle on its own due to purchases like Howard and the NFL and now it needs help. While XM’s stock is worth more than Sirius and has the best chance of going profitable soon, it too needs help. These guys need each other to survive. Once together, raising prices won’t harm us satellite addicts because we’ll have no other drug dealer to go to any more. Hence, price raising and lesser quality at the customer service desk is a sure thing.

   Based on Congress’ rubber stamping anything that runs through the halls of Capital Hill in the last decade, this will probably happen anyway. Sirius and XM were keen to do this before Bush left office because he won’t veto this.

   As to the oil companies, don’t even get me started there. Ugh!

Leave a Reply