[BC] Sirius + XM

[Mark Humphrey]

I would like to know if these "pro-consumer" "assurances" would be
enforceable for any meaningful length of time.  Mel & Co are promising
subscription rate reductions and expanded minority programming, but
what's to keep them from changing their minds once the deal is
approved?

This reminds me of the time a college friend and I applied for a
Docket 80-90 allotment near Rochester.  As local residents, we
submitted an honest, realistic owner-operator proposal, while the
other twelve applicants (mostly from outside the market) promised all
sorts of minority participation and a bunch of local public affairs
programming, so we didn't stand a chance.   The CP was awarded to the
applicant with the most money for lawyers, then a couple of years
later, he sold the "stick" to Clear Channel, which turned it into a
generic AC, voice-tracked from Cincinnati -- and all that great local
programming never materialized.
Needless to say, many other comparative hearings were decided the same
way, with the "winner" selling out shortly after making his bogus
claims and the new licensee doing something completely different.

How about the system that was used to award Cable TV franchises in
many communities?  Philadelphia insisted on dividing the city into
four zones, each with a different cable operator.  Decisions were
supposedly based on minority participation and public interest
benefits.   But today, Comcast owns everything, and there's still no
public access channel:

http://www.phillyaccess.org/

Why should we expect the XM/Sirius merger to be any different?

Mark

On 3/1/07, WFIFeng at aol.com <WFIFeng at aol.com> wrote:
> Here's an interesting article about the proposed mega-merger:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2rugo5
>
>