Xm & Sirius radio,is that a GOOD THING or a monopoly??

Question

If they're both going broke,,How will that SAVE them??

Answer 1

their idea is to add commercials so they continue losing business

Answer 2

I've been an XM subscriber for 3 years.  Lately it seems they've increased the number of commercials and turned some of the best channels into commercial ones.  I think they think if they don't have to compete with one another they'll be able to spend more on content and less on the market fight for listeners willing to subscribe.

If you ask me, Sirius made a fatal mistake when they gave Howard Stern $500 million.  Do you know how many subscriptions you have to sell just to get that much back?  It's a ton.

I may be canceling soon if they don't handle this right.

Bring back XM Led!  Zeppelin rocks, man.

Answer 3

SIRIUS RULES!

Answer 4

Well, they're not both going broke, but neither are they growing market share as either would like.

Bottom line for me, as an XM subscriber, I'll wait and see what I have access to when the dust settles.  It looks like I'll be able to get the 4 or 5 stations I actually listen to for a reduced rate.

Works for me.

Answer 5

Good thing.  I will certainly help. Then folks will be able to get things a la carte. In other words if I want NFL and MLB I dont' have to have two radios - one for NFL (Sirius) and one for MLB (XM). I also wouldn't have to choose a car based on the type of satellite it receives. (Obviously I'm not dumb enough to make a $25k purchase based on the radio, but if I bought a Nissan I wouldn't need satellite radio cause I want XM, and I'm not going to buy an Acura instead of a Nissan because it has XM). But it would be nice to have one receiver that receives it all.

Also with a la carte pricing satellite radio will cost less. The companies have already submitted a pricing guide to Congress and it is lower in many cases than current pricing.

This will not be a monopoly. Sat radio is only 4% of radio listeners. A monopoly is what Clear Channel has on the terrestrial radio market. 4% share is not a monopoly.

Answer 6

Well it's now simply a buy out. The staff at XM don't really know what to do. Nothing will happen anytime soon. It's a good thing if they save both companies from going under.

Answer 7

Apparently they are claiming a cost savings of about 4 billion dollars with the merger.

Both companies have over a billion dollars a piece in debt service.  They have to do something quick (i.e. merge) before the holes they're digging get too big to climb out of.

Answer 8

This is a very good thing for both companies.  They both offer pretty much the same services, but with the two joining they can come together and make one company offering the best of both worlds.  Now, the new company can cut overhead costs, and with the total subscriptions (around 16 million or so I think) they can pay on air talent properly for what they do. Who knows, this could mean less commercials for talk radio as well! They both struggle against free FM radio, Ipod/downloading/Mp3, podcasts, and Internet based radio.  This does not create a monopoly because it is not an essential service without completion.  The bottom line is that because you don't require a satellite radio in your house, you can choose to listen to free FM radio, the new company still faces outside competition in the same market.