Sirius-XM merger: No static at all
Updated at 4:45 p.m. PDT to clarify that portable receivers are capable of receiving live program signals.
The marriage of satellite radio providers Sirius and XM has finally received the blessing of the Federal Communications Commission on Friday. Now we can all finally get the game we want.

For many prospective customers, a key sticking point was the different selections of sports programming offered exclusively by each provider. A few years back, I wanted to make a present of a Sirius subscription to a friend who spends a lot of time driving around Northern California, especially in places that don't get AM/FM signals. After sampling XM and Sirius' music selections, I knew that she would enjoy the Sirius offerings over the XM offerings. But XM broadcasts more games of the sports she enjoyed--just not all of them. There really wasn't a clear winner. So, to keep from saddling her with the wrong or incomplete service, I opted against the gift. Basically, the lack of a comprehensive offering cost the industry a customer.
I suspect that this was a dilemma faced by many listeners who were in search of more than their local radio stations could offer. But the merger means that listeners will be able to choose from a menu to add programming a la carte. For subscribers, this is a big win in programming. You can also bet that the prospect of replacing existing receivers will irritate early adopters.
Critics, however, will tell you that the merger will result in a monopoly. While the elimination of immediate industry competition will create a de facto monopoly, satellite radio is not the only source of music, talk, or sports broadcasting available to consumers. People are getting their music from many sources today. Besides satellite radio, people are finding their favorite tunes on Internet radio, MP3 players, music-playing cell phones and even traditional terrestrial radio.
To tell the truth, I don't listen to terrestrial radio, or traditional free radio, much anymore, unless there is a game I can't get on television. Indeed, "free radio" offers one of the more exciting and attractive music options in the form of HD radio. Unfortunately, some four years after HD radio hit airwaves, consumers have not embraced the new format, which ultimately suffers in comparison with satellite radio because of its limited range. If I weren't so pleased with Sirius' music programming and the fact that it's offered as part of my Dish subscription, I would probably spring for an HD receiver to plug into my A/V home receiver. But I keep waiting for an affordable A/V receiver to come on the market that has HD radio built in as part of the tuner. When that happens, expect home satellite subscriptions to wane a little.
(Disclosure: I listen to music-only Sirius at home via Dish Network and a complete subscription in my wife's car. The only financial interest I have in either company comes in the form of monthly subscription bills.)
You might think that the satellite industry has the upper hand in broadcasting. But while we're on the topic of things we're waiting for, let's look at some of the things the satellite industry can improve. While Sirius now touts portable units as being capable of receiving live signals, many users complain of spotty or poor reception while on the go. Also, while traffic and weather reports for a few metropolitan areas is great, satellite radio can't provide the same content as local news radio stations, so it would be nice have a portable unit that also gets AM/FM radio stations.
As a prerequisite for FCC approval, the companies agreed to freeze subscription rates for three years. If they try to jack the prices on consumers, expect consumers to change the dial, especially with the wide variety of options that are available to consumers today.
How will this merger affect your listening habits? Write in to TalkBack and let us know.
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven.
- Topics:
-
Corporate & legal
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us



"Turning 24 channels over to non-commercial and minority programming. Three year price freeze. Open Access. A-La-Carte pricing available within 3 months of deal closure. The FCC will open a new case to look more closely at HD inclusion."
http://tinyurl.com/6kw3mn
"Ibiquity Fears Open Access Will Not Help Adoption Of HD Radio"
"I have said it before, and I will say it again. HD Radio has a responsibility to market itself. They should not be out looking for business model hand-outs. They should not be trying to circumvent negotiations with OEM?s by getting into car dashboards on the backs of the negotiations that Sirius and XM have made, and by extension, on the backs of shareholders in the SDARS companies."
http://tinyurl.com/6pgnq2
Crappy HD Radio lost! HD Radio is a farce!
http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com
um... i guess since you have sirius, it's mildly excusable that you got this wrong. although as a journalist, i would hope you would at least check a claim like this before you print it.
i've had a tao myfi from XM for going on two years now (it was released more than three years ago, 12/04), and it's portable and i get live satellite broadcasts on it. my wife even uses hers with a small external antenna and gets reception in the gym while she works out.
HD radio? A joke, and too little too late.
My god, how uninformed you are to make a comment like that.
Really? Capitalism in America? Next thing you will say that our government is a Republic.
"But that is not the case for people who want to take their programming for a walk."
Untrue.
Stiletto 100
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=ProductAsset&cid=1158082417240
Features:
Live portable reception of SIRIUS programming.
Seriously, this is some horrible journalism.
From much past experience, "non-commercial" = Few listeners
Just look at PBS and NPR for example. A tiny fraction too small to imagine make up the audience of these two taxpayer-funded leftist organizations as compared with commercial broadcasters. That is the plain fact not open to dispute.
I am all for the merger, but it sounds like 23 channels wasted on my radio.
"The reason for the delay was that the NAB, the group of businesses that use and profit from the public airwaves for free... didn't want the competition. They tried to thwart satellite radio in the first place and continued to try to kill it.
HD radio? A joke, and too little too late."
REPLY:
WHAT????? Profit for free?? Do you know what it takes to purchase a commercial radio broadcast license? Not to mention what it costs to run a commercial operation. The electricity bill alone for a class C FM runs in the neighborhood of $20,000 per month.
My god, how uninformed you are to make a comment like that.
Please do a little research before accusing someone of being uninformed. (Unless, of course, you're a broadcaster. If so, never mind.)
There are fundamental distinctions between satellite radio service and all of the other examples of "competition" provided both by the writer of this article, the commenters here, as well as the parties to the merger.
Satellite radio is entirely unique, and provides unique advantages over these claimed "competitors". It provides a clearly differentiated alternative to 1) pre-recorded content (MP3 players, CD's, videos, etc), 2) geographically static content (audio broadcast via wireline broadband delivery such as cable, DSL, etc), 3) geographically limited broadcast content (AM/FM terrestrial radio) and 4) other wireless audio content. (ie audio delivery over cellular networks)
Choice #1 requires the user to purchase and organize content beforehand - this has been the strong appeal of terrestrial radio over records/CD's for generations. Choice #2 tethers the listener to a single physical location. Choice #3 is generally inferior due to limited geographic coverage (ie while traveling on the road), in programming variety, audio and reception quality and reliability, and predictability/consistency. (you can't listen to your favorite station while you drive across the country) Option #4 is impractical for a variety of reasons including cost, quality, lack of an independent delivery mechanism from a person's cellphone, etc.
The bottom line is - none of these things are actually competitors to satellite radio. It's a fallacy. The XM/Sirius merger creates an unconditional monopoly. As soon as the short-term merger-mandated limits expire, prices will go up, advertising will go overboard, quality will go down, variety will go down.
I have to buy a new receiver? Are you kidding me? I like mine so much that my girlfriend bought me a spare for when the current one burns out. What a bunch of crap.
Second, no matter what anyone says or thinks, this is NOT a monopoly for your ears. The fact is the satellite radio has to compete with the iPod, which conveniently plays the tunes you like best. It has to compete with FREE over-the-air radio, which is what people will switch to if the cost goes up too much. It may be unique, but it has competition. To say otherwise is like saying the sky is green: you can say it, but that doesn't make it true.
By the way, what is this new company going to call itself?
-
by wsltexas
July 28, 2008 9:58 AM PDT
- I have XM. I listen to music and baseball plus NPR. I have to listen to regular radio for everyday NPR programs and football. Now that I'll be able to get those on satellite I don't know that I'll ever need regular radio. We just drove cross country and XM was fabulous. We tried stations we hadn't listened to before and added comedy when we got bored. With the addition of Sirius I believe this is the right move. Just don't get greedy. As good as you are you're not a requirement.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 34 Comments >>