Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Deciding vote on Sirius XM leans in favor of deal

updated 04:35 pm EDT, Thu July 17, 2008

FCC Leans To Sirius XM

A crucial voter in the long-delayed Sirius/XM merger vote is leaning in favor of approving the deal, says the AP. FCC Commissioner and Democrat Party member Jonathan Adelstein says he would vote in favor of the deal as long as the unified satellite radio entity would agree to a six-year cap on subscription rates as well as devoting a full 25 percent of all channels to public or minority-focused stations.

Top executives from either firm have yet to respond to these requests and so far have proposed only ligher concessions, including setting aside just eight percent of the channels and no definite timetable for any potential price freeze.

An Adelstein vote is essential to the fate of the merger, which would leave just one satellite radio provider in the US and has earned stiff opposition from both two other FCC Commissioners as well as the National Association of Broadcasting, which represents terrestrial radio and contends a Sirius/XM deal would constitute a monopoly rather than simply another competitor in radio.



By Electronista Staff
Post tools:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. Guest

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 1999

    0

    Fascist

    Gotta love this, some guy decides what the market "wants", laying claim to 25% of the company's assets for purposes he thinks are correct. If democrat Adelstein is so concerned about public and minority stations, then why doesn't he raise the multiple billions of dollars and launch his own company?

    For you Obama fans, this is just a small sample of what you're in favor of. Sounds great, until they set their fascist sights on you and your own endeavors and decides that 25% of your efforts should be on they decide is important.

  1. Guest

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 1999

    0

    Huh?

    Dude,

    Making sure companies are regulated to some degree is not a form of fascism. You may want to argue against any government regulation. If the consequences of the lax regulation of the mortgage industry is OK with you - great. I would prefer a bit of regulation to protect me.

  1. Guest

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 1999

    0

    Huh?

    Dude,

    Making sure companies are regulated to some degree is not a form of fascism. You may want to argue against any government regulation. If the consequences of the lax regulation of the mortgage industry is OK with you - great. I would prefer a bit of regulation to protect me.

  1. webb3201

    Senior User

    Joined: Nov 2001

    0

    This is not regulation..

    Providing some oversight is fine, but demanding control of 25% of the business is insane. These companies spent billions getting these resources in place and will not survive as independents. We had less restrictions placed on Exxon/Mobile, which is a more important merger for each of us than a subscription entertainment service. This is not a Democratic issue however, but a lobby issue, Clear Channel has a lot of money and is forcing these thing through. I actually hope that Obama will perhaps loosen some of the lobby controls on government (I am doubtful though)

  1. Guest

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 1999

    0

    To "Huh?" Guest

    I chose the word "fascist" carefully and deliberately. I don't know how you can better describe this.

    The FCC is justifying this under the guise of stopping a monopoly. But there is plenty of competition for satellite radio, whether there are one or two players. There's local radio, HD radio, iPods, CDs, etc.
    In reality, any business is a monopoly if you define it narrowly enough.

    But what is more disconcerting is the supposed remedy: the government gets to set prices and determines how the company will use its assets. All, of course, for the "public good". The only thing that surprises me about this democrat FCC commissioner is that he's avoided claims that he's doing this for "the chillllldren".

    I suggest you rethink your cavalier attitude toward this kind of fascist control of business. Because if the government can justify this effective takeover of a private business, they can justify any takeover. Maybe next they'll set their sights on Target, or Wal Mart or some other retailer, force them to fix their prices for six years (six years!) and open 25% of their stores in locations the government considers underserved. Eventually they'll turn their sights on you, because they know what's best and we're poor schmucks who aren't as enlightened as they are.

    Now, as to your comment about the mortgage industry, let me just point out that several years ago the government and "activists" started haranguing mortgage lenders about "redlining" -- the supposed practice of not lending to low income neighborhoods. Well, the mortgage industry responded, and nowadays we call these subprime mortgages, and they are the source of all of the financial woes. So I would say that the government's track record in regulating and making things better is suspect at best.

    I'm not a wild-west libertarian, but I am damn distrustful of any attempt by the government to regulate a business. There are few examples of success. I challenge you to come up with three.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

IDrive cloud backup and sync service

There are a lot of cloud services out there, and nearly all of them can be used for backing up key files and folders. A few dedicated ...

Asus Chromebook C300

When Chromebooks hit the market back in 2011, consumers didn't know what to do with them. The low-cost laptops, powered by Google's Ch ...

Plantronics BackBeat Pro Bluetooth headphones

Looking for a pair of headphones that can do everything a user requires is a task that can take some study. Trying to decide on in-ear ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News