XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

brock — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:34:10 GMT

brock

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

Lisa — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:29:35 GMT

I don't see a monopoly as a good thing. Microsoft tried to do something of the sort and it was fine and stopped.

I like my XM but since the merger they keep adding stations, which is great, but now the ones I like such as, Blue Collar Comedy, has disappeared.

What other stations are next? I would rather Howard Stern disappear then Blue Collar. If more of the stations that I listen to go then I will too.

The Ipod is looking much better to me right now!

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

Scott the engineer — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:46:52 GMT

The merger was good, for who? I am a shareholder and lost half my money!

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

ricarlo — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:44:05 GMT

The delay of this merger clearly proves the power of the lobbyists. There was no freaking reason for a 16 month approval. They have merged companies ten times as large as these two within several months. No one wants to see the elephant in the room. Well, I see it and its name is Howard Stern. Hey, I'm not a Stern fan per se but we have to take our heads out from underneath the sand and acknowledge the obvious.

Unfortunately, with the 16 month delay, the enthusiasm normally associated with a merge will not happen as it normally does. Hopefully, when the smoke clears,

it will work out for both companies and the satellite customers.

Ricarlo

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

Caca Volante — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:01:58 GMT

Kim Peterson ate my ass one night after a frat party while she was at Rutgers.

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

Chris — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:55:57 GMT

and yet noone said a thing when Exxon and Miobil Merged to form the largest oil company and their worried about sat. radio companies... Wow our government has issues with their priorties... good thing its a voting year.. so we can vote out the goofballs who do nothing but take money from lobbyists..aka the same who are dragging down the sirius xm merger its a win win for any subscriber even more programming and commercial free

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

paul xm customer — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:10:08 GMT

this is a monopoly the two company are direct competitors mel says that the companys compete with free radio not true. xm listeners and sirus listeners choose their own programing and dont like one or the others service these services merging will not benifit any one except sirus stock holders whos stock was in the toilet due to mis management by mel and company the sec and fcc should block this merger because they are direct competiors and this would be like both satalite tv services merging not fair at all and both stock holders will lose when mel runs both companys in the ground like he ran cbs radio in the ground.

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

Barb — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:41:40 GMT

Prices should be coming down in this type of technology (i.e. mature) --- the current admin will bless any monopoly... this will end in January.

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

Ralph from Somersworth — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 00:56:32 GMT

I am very happy with the non-commercial music chanels. I saved $64 on a 3 year contract which equals $10/mo. I use Xm's Pioneer portable when I do my daily 30min walk with downloaded music because the reception is spotty in my area. I haven't tried the earphone which is suppose to improve reception. I'll delay that purchase now that Xm/Syrius viability is 'up in the air'!

re: XM plus Sirius doesn't equal monopoly?

Ken — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:44:47 GMT

Well, Kim, if you'd been following this from the beginning, you'd know that as part of the proposal, the companies agreed to abide by a new pricing plan that would call for a lower base rate for the service that covers 50 channels, with customers able to choose which 50 they want to subscribe to. The cable industry has been fighting "a la carte" pricing for decades, and their rates certainly haven't gone down.

The DOJ decision is simply a matter of someone in government actually being reasonable about the way they look at today's world. We should applaud it rather than criticize it.

Why is it that so many columnists think it's more important to be smug than accurate?