There is still free radio that people can listen too and if free radio stations feel this is unfair competition perhaps they too could significantly reduces commercials and actually provide entertainment for longer than 7 minutes at a time.
Thoughts?
2007-02-20 07:29:55 · 10 answers · asked by Barbo 2 in Business & Finance ➔ Investing
I agree with you....I guess it comes down to how narrow/broad the regulatory agencies determine their industry to be. If one considers they compete in the radio/media entertainment market then I think you're right and the merger will be approved...if the agency takes a more narrow view on their competition and determie that the two companies are solely in the satelite radio industry then the chances of the merger being approved is pretty slim. This merger has been talked about for so long and I would seriously doubt that the companies would have gone to the extent of announcing the merger like they did yesterday if they weren't pretty optimisitc of regulatory approval. I have read that they actually have received a preliminary ok by the regulatory agencies and while it's not a done deal, because the big money on wall street wants it done I think it will be approved. There's little disagreement that the business model for both companies is terrible and without the merger it would be difficult for either to survive in the long run.
2007-02-20 07:54:55 · answer #1 · answered by SmittyJ 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you do not recognize that a merger between Sirius and XM would control 100% of satellite radio would constitute a monopoly, then you do not understand what a monopoly is.
If someone controlled 100% of the margerine market, one would have a monopoly on margerine, even though people could still buy butter.
You could debate whether this would be better for XM and Sirius, of even the public, but that would be another argument.
It seems to me that it was dumb to pay Howard Stern all that money. Perhaps if this is typical of XM and Sirius, then they have no business being in business at all.
I don't think I will be paying $13 per month to listen to a radio station, ever. If they need a monopoly to turn a profit, then either they are incompetent, or the whole idea of satellite radio is bogus.
When AT&T controlled most US telephone service, the service sucked and was more expensive, even though it did turn a profit for a few people. Think upon that.
2007-02-20 08:17:23 · answer #2 · answered by Richard E 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do not see the merger as "Monopoly" worthy.
This (Satellite Transmitted Radio) is a new technology and a premium one at that.
They do not put a strangle hold on the transmission of this type of information since it comes in so many other forms.
This merger does not dis-bar anyone else from entering into this market...it just raises the bar.
The merger is more of a self-preservation move and will enable them to consolidate administrative functions and marketing expenses.
Why fight the other guy when you can buy him.
2007-02-20 07:48:14 · answer #3 · answered by Ronatnyu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The main problem is that there are only two licenses available for the radio spectrum, XM has one and SIRI has the other. The FCC rules specifically prohibit both licenses from being held by one company. This is a huge hurdle that has to be overcome. If the FCC were to rescind the rule, they are effectively granting a monopoly since there is no more radio spectrum available.
2007-02-20 08:11:53 · answer #4 · answered by huskie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To me, satellite radio is a market, although I am not sure that fully describes the XM and Sirius situation. The two of them appear to have 100% of the market. I think they have a problem with SEC.
2007-02-20 07:56:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you, but the government might not.
During the previous admin, they choose odd market segmentations to define markets, and would disallow mergers based on it.
For instance, Staples and Office Depot were going to merge, and the government decided that the combination would monopolize the "office superstore" market - ignoring the fact that they would be selling less than office supplies than Wal-Mart.
2007-02-20 11:27:48 · answer #6 · answered by Quixotic 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you Barbo. Although technically a monopoly within a niche market, I think it's safe to assume that satellite radio fits into the broader "radio market"
2007-02-20 08:20:18 · answer #7 · answered by Gal E 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there have been some anti-have faith concerns approximately such an association, and that i've got self assurance the two facets will ought to pay some fines and artwork out some programming concerns as a manner to make it complete. even though that's going to take place.
2016-10-16 02:52:49 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think they will let them do it,since there are now only two licensees but if the feds are planning to auction off more space to other players then maybe they would approve it.
2007-02-20 08:12:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
since when are they merging? you got a link to this story? I doubt they would be approved for a merger.
2007-02-20 07:34:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋