[BC] sats merger

[Rich Wood]

------ At 04:35 PM 2/19/2007, Bernie Courtney wrote: -------

>In this case I think its for the better.  XM has better technology, they
>both have tons of programming that is duplicated between the two and costs $
>to produce, and have content that forces people to currently choose one or
>the other (NFL on sirius, MLB on XM, etc).  This is the first step in making
>the satellite radio marketplace MUCH better off (and profitable for
>shareholders).

I've chosen one. Will they replace my receiver if I lose the gamble 
on which technology will survive? Does terrestrial radio have jobs 
for the hundreds of people who will be let go? I know people who went 
to satellite or Internet radio and were considered traitors unable to 
find real radio jobs when they got fired.

The two technologies are different. Will the surviving one be able to 
cram 100+ additional channels on the remaining stream or will they 
disappear?  Fortunately, my receiver cost $49 and I've gotten at 
least that much service out of it. It's not like I spent $300 on it.

The first thing I expect once all the details are finalized is a 
return to commercial music channels. Commercial free came about 
through competition and the need to sell receivers.

Rich