I commented against it. I know the two companies want to tell us that they compete with terrestrial radio or portable digital content, but I do not agree with that.
The two companies offer commercial free music, special event channels, special event broadcasts, and content a lot of us can not get on terrestrial radio. So how are they in competition with them? The only way I can listen to an old radio program such as "The Lone Ranger", is on the internet. Not in my automobile. The only way I can listen to Jazz in my car is if I download music and listen to cd's or plug in my portable .mp3 player, which can get old after a while.
This is why I believe satellite radio should be considered in competition with itself, and not be allowed to be a monopoly. I do not want to start paying $20, or even $15 a month to listen to The old Time Radio channel on XM.
You totally missed the point.
If you want to listen to the lone ranger, YOU CAN! Download it onto an MP3 player. Yes it costs money, but so does satellite radio, and you can never be assured when it will come on the radio. Both cost money, both deliver the product, but in different ways... pick the one that suits you best.
Commercial free music... once again, mp3 players, CDs, Cassettes, ect. can do that. Regular radio can't, but because one of the competing products can't doesn't a monopoly make.
Special event broadcasts? Special Event Channels? You certainly don't think those don't exist on regular radio right? use the tuner knob instead of the presets. You will find H.S. football, College sports, Pro-Sports, political debates, presidential speaches, news, ect... all on the regular radio! Seasonal channels? Flip around right now and you will find at least 2-3 sports only channels, 2-3 religious, 2-3 country music, ect... not to mention at least 1 or more "Holiday/Christmas music only trough Dec.25" stations... on the regular radio.
How is that not competition?
Do you honestly think Sat. Radio would raise their prices that high? Take an econ course. Companies will not raise prices to simply raise prices. Any increase in price has the effect of a DECREASE is quantity demanded. Why would ANYONE pay $25 a month for something they could listen to for free, or download and listen at their own leasure for less than that per month (not to mention if you like classics, then you only have to pay once!)
Satellite radio is currently losing money and struggling to add to their subscribers fast enough to stay solvent... a price increase would really not help that. A merger would because then they could have ONE building for the 2 they have now, eliminate duplicate channels, have ONE set of satellites and satellite maintenance costs, ect..
YES, it would create a satellite radio monopoly... however it would not be a monopoly for the product delivered, only the means of delivering that product. A product which you can get via many other delivery methods. (except products that are EXCLUSIVE to sat radio like Stern, however that is also to free radio in the form of Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Bob and Tom. Comedy/Talk is the product, these are just examples of exclusive artists and already exist without the merger anyhow)
