XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly? - Top Stocks Blog - MSN Money
 
Search Top Stocks:

XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

Posted Mar 24 2008, 05:04 PM by Kim Peterson
Rating:
Filed under: ,

So combining the only two satellite radio providers in the U.S. won't create a monopoly. Huh? That's what the Justice Department said today after giving its blessing to the merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio.

Both stocks soared today on the news. XM shares closed up 15% to $13.79, and Sirius shares closed up nearly 9% to $3.15.

The first thing I thought after seeing the news was that the price of satellite radio will go up. But the DOJ sees it differently. The merged company won't be able to raise prices, accordng to the DOJ, because doing so would send customers into the arms of traditional radio, HD radio, iPods and the audio content available on cell phones.

OK, I could maybe buy that. The iPod might look an awful lot better to people if their satellite radio bill increases. But the next part of the DOJ's news release is downright silly. XM and Sirius are going to save a "substantial" amount of money by merging, the DOJ said, and those savings could be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices. Uh-huh. OK. Sure.

Yet in the same paragraph, the DOJ said it wasn't possible to estimate how much money would be saved because XM and Sirius wouldn't provide enough evidence. So the DOJ all-but-announces a satellite radio price cut even though it had no financial basis to do so.

Finally, the DOJ said that future technologies will provide enough competition to satellite radio to keep prices down. Wireless networks being developed can stream Internet radio to cell phones and other devices. But it's hard to predict which of these networks will be successful or when they'll become available, the DOJ said.

At any rate, the merger got the green light (it goes to the FCC next) and we'll see if the DOJ's claims turn out to be true. I could see hardware incompatibilities causing some problems, but the DOJ doesn't mention that. Call me a cynic, but I wouldn't be surprised if satellite radio gets a little more expensive.

Here's what others are saying about the news:

DailyTech: "Now that the merger has been approved, it’s up to XM and Sirius to prove to consumers that the merger will be a benefit to everyone, not just the satellite radio providers." 

Blogging Stocks: "It sounds to me like this could be just another non value-creating merger to add to the pantheon of deals that have over-promised and under-delivered."

Jon Markman: "But the merger plan actually amounts to the death of a dream for investors who came to believe that shares of Sirius -- propelled skyward for a short time by the hiring of snarky talk show host Howard Stern -- would make them rich beyond compare."

Ars Technica: "Given the hardware incompatibilities between the two services, it may be a while before subscribers benefit from the combined entity. New receivers capable of getting programming from both providers should hit the market fairly quickly; retrofitting current gear to take advantage of programming from both XM and Sirius will be more challenging." 

Gizmodo: "And if they do raise prices and start sucking, people have plenty of other options to abandon them for. On the other hand, they were both already on life support, so this jolt might not be enough to fully re-animte them. "

Comments

 

That a good point Dale.

Ms. or Mrs. Peterson,

After reading your article based on nothing but opinion, I will have to call you "a cynic".

wow, you are one dumb c***, lady

Way to only pick the qoutes that support your arrgument...

Are these people getting paid off by clear channel?

Are you getting paid off by clear channel?

Ms. Peterson,

After reading your article based solely on nothing but your opinion I think I will call you "a cynic".

Kim Peterson's comments are the usual from an uninformed journalist.  She has to make headline comments so she will get more people like myself to comment on her article.  If not she would be out of a job.  I agree with the others that the monopoly is not an issue.   The FCC allowed Clearchannel to own over half the radio stations tell me that is not a monopoly.

I cannot understand how people see this as a monopoly.  The delay in aproval has to do with one thing - MONEY!!!  Clear Channel, CBS have alot at stake.  I thoroughly enjoy Sirius however my truck came with XM.  Can't wait till the merger is complete so I can have my Sirius back!!!

Monopoly. All mergers are Monopolies. AT&T is a monopoly. Clear Channel is a monopoly. The RIAA is a monopoly. Wake up people companies don't compete when they merge. Do you really think they don't price set behind the scenes?!!

If this is not a monopoly then why was Microsoft a monopoly? You could have bought a Mac or used Linux. Wake up companies are skirting the law and lining their pockets with your money.

Was Kim Peterson born an idiot or was she just exposed to too much lead as a child? Is satellite radio a necessity? NO. There are plenty of options as to where consumers get their music. The primary one is free. Satellite radio is a luxury. The two companies will make more money because more people will now get on board the satellite radio freight train because of VARIETY. No more baseball on one network, and NASCAR on the other. No more Oprah here, Martha Stewart there, football here, basketball there. This merger makes dollars and sense all around.

Kim, what is a monopoly? Is it a game by Parker Brothers? I bet you wanted the MCDonalds boardwalk piece didn't you? Read up on your facts before you post a rediculous article like this!

Did I miss something? Last I checked I wasn't required to subscribe to satellite radio, which is a good thing considering I don't have a receiver or interest in either company.

Anyway, Clear Channel is enough of a pain to regular radio listeners, they decide the format we should listen to not us.

Monopoly or not, Satellite radio has never truely taken off, if they do not merge then either or both of these companies will fail and more than likely one would fail and the other will follow shortly after.

From the consumers point of view nothing could be better than a combined entity, car manufacturers can put units in their vehicles which receive both signals and that in itself might spur take up and improve profitability. That and encourage people to trade in old units for the new ones at a discount in the hope that they will stay customers.

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):