|
|
Post by admin on Jun 16, 2007 0:57:08 GMT -5
Heres one for ya the NAB is taking it's case to the web xmsiriusmonopoly.org/My take..... I'm totally against the merger, in fact I have no intention in renewing my subscription to Sirius, these guys know better than this the FCC said no merging from the start back in 1997.... Although this does not quite rise to the dirty, filthy RIAA deceptions, it is high ranking, when will these companies learn?  |
|
|
|
Post by x on Jun 16, 2007 21:29:27 GMT -5
There are two arguments for changing the rules now. One is that the radio landscape has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. The rise of alternate forms of music delivery (from downloading music and ipods to internet radio and IBOC) has made the possibility of monopolizing media much more remote. Two is that the alternative may be having both satellite services go dark. That wont help anybody.
I don't see a problem with it myself, but I'm also not going to pay into it either.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 21, 2007 2:02:26 GMT -5
I don't agree with the NAB, they are slimy at every turn they make, but I don't like monopolies and less people will be able to pay for it as the subscription rates are probably going up to between $15 and $30 a month if the merger goes through, take away the fact of less choice for the consumer, and I don't buy into this "they will both go bankrupt" argument, there is more than enough room in the marketplace for both, just look at satellite TV, what they need to stop doing is paying Howard Stern wages for programming and be more practical
Just my take...now I'll come down off my soapbox ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by x on Jun 22, 2007 0:12:23 GMT -5
You may be right. There's a difference between satellite/cable TV and satellite radio though. People actively watch TV. Radio is mostly in the background, except in very specialized cases. Since people aren't really paying all that much attention to radio, how much of a difference does it make to people whether it's a terrestrial station or a satellite one? The radio geeks will probably care, but will the public at large?
You mentioned Stern. If there was any unique content that would bring subscribers to satellite radio, he's it. He hasn't set the ledger books on fire by a long shot. Helpful, yes, but not nearly to the numbers that the gung-ho satellite people were hoping for. He isn't anywhere near as visible as he was when he was on a terrestrial network.
Then there's another problem. Nobody can even agree on what constitutes a subscriber! There are so many free radios with free demo subscriptions being given out that it's hard to figure out how many people are actually listening. Is a "subscriber" a) someone who pays, b) anyone who has an active receiver (paid or free trial) or c) anyone who has authorization to use the service (paid, free trial or unactivated free trial)? The bean counters go with 'c' because the satellite service gets money or all three. To figure out how popular the service is, you should probably go with 'a', but you can make a case for 'b' too, since nobody is going to pay more during their free trial whether they like it or not. It's nuts!
|
|
