Do you think ClearChannel and other radio conglomerates are paying Congress to b!
Question: The issue is whether the Sirius/XM merger violates anti-trust laws. The government opened the satellite radio spectrum to two companies with the understanding that they could not merge. Supporters of the merger say that times have changed and that terristeral and Internet radio stations, as well as MP3 players are competition and therefore a merger is needed to compete fairly.
While opponets say one satellite radio company means no satellite radio competition. Not competition from terristeral radio but in essence, allowing no other satellite radio choice. So if you want coast-to-coast coverage, you have only one company to use. In the past with monopolies, no competition hurts the consumer, with increased costs, poor quality control and limited choice (I do not know if you remember AT&T but service was horrible until the government broke it up in 1984).
Sirius/XM has attempted to ease the errors of past monopolies by stating they would offer lower-priced packages and ala-carte pricing, but there is no guarantees this would occur and for how long.
In my opinion, Clear Channel, which owns significant shares of XM and even provides programming on 4 XM channels, is not blocking the merger. Regardless if the merger is approved, the Inernet and MP3 players will still offer more choices to customers. I believe the stalling is beause the Department of Justice is leary of the proposed CEO of the merged corporation, Mel Karmazin. While XM has been fairly open with ther subscriber numbers, financial losses (not a penny made) Sirius has not. For instance, new cars equipped with Sirius are counted as subscribers even before the vehicles are sold, to artifically inflate the subscriber totals.
XM and Sirius have never been profitable and although a consolidated company would cut overhead costs, there is no guarantee the merger would make the company turn a profit. The governement needs to be cautious, which they are doing, to ensure the needs of the customer are put ahead of the needs of the shareholders. Paying off debt made by questionable business decisions are not the responsibility of the customer or government.
Answers: The issue is whether the Sirius/XM merger violates anti-trust laws. The government opened the satellite radio spectrum to two companies with the understanding that they could not merge. Supporters of the merger say that times have changed and that terristeral and Internet radio stations, as well as MP3 players are competition and therefore a merger is needed to compete fairly.
While opponets say one satellite radio company means no satellite radio competition. Not competition from terristeral radio but in essence, allowing no other satellite radio choice. So if you want coast-to-coast coverage, you have only one company to use. In the past with monopolies, no competition hurts the consumer, with increased costs, poor quality control and limited choice (I do not know if you remember AT&T but service was horrible until the government broke it up in 1984).
Sirius/XM has attempted to ease the errors of past monopolies by stating they would offer lower-priced packages and ala-carte pricing, but there is no guarantees this would occur and for how long.
In my opinion, Clear Channel, which owns significant shares of XM and even provides programming on 4 XM channels, is not blocking the merger. Regardless if the merger is approved, the Inernet and MP3 players will still offer more choices to customers. I believe the stalling is beause the Department of Justice is leary of the proposed CEO of the merged corporation, Mel Karmazin. While XM has been fairly open with ther subscriber numbers, financial losses (not a penny made) Sirius has not. For instance, new cars equipped with Sirius are counted as subscribers even before the vehicles are sold, to artifically inflate the subscriber totals.
XM and Sirius have never been profitable and although a consolidated company would cut overhead costs, there is no guarantee the merger would make the company turn a profit. The governement needs to be cautious, which they are doing, to ensure the needs of the customer are put ahead of the needs of the shareholders. Paying off debt made by questionable business decisions are not the responsibility of the customer or government.
Find out the position of the lobby group National Association of Broadcasters and you have your answer. They're funded by the big boys of radio.
Clear Channel owns a piece of XM, so why would they object?
Ask Mitt Romney, he has Bain Capital one of the partners of the CCR buyout!
Define paying.
But if you cut to the chase, No. Of course not. There are some good, well-thought comments here. But the "answer" to your question is no.
-a guy named duh
Someone must have a hidden agenda! This merger is a joke! It has been almost a year since Congress started discussing it. The Sprint/Verizon merger was resolved in a few weeks, as was another merger between two of the oil companies. Why does this take SO long!?!?!
Why? Clear Channel holds stock in XM currently... Why affect something they have their hands in?
I don't think they are blocking it as they are trying to fight their own wars on more consolidation currently. That and it could be seen as trying to tamper (even though that hasn't stopped a lobbyist yet)
Basically it's a anti-trust issue as the consolidation could technically set their own prices and people would either be forced to pay the price or walk away and this is what the DOJ and FCC is expected to be ruling on fixing.
However for more info:
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite...
Out right bribing, no. Clear Channel is in the process of trying to sell off radio properties and it would be a really bad time for terrestrial radio to look as if its on the down slide.
Clear Channel is a big political contributor and politicians don't like to tick off the people to give them people money to get elected. I promise you, this merger will not go through until Clear Channel has completed the sell of its radio properties or Bush is out of office. Don't forget clear channel is based in Texas and, has strong connections to the president.
Clear Channel is and evil, evil company.