Comments on: XM, Sirius unveil plans for postmerger price drops

Listeners would have several new options, including an "a la carte" package that costs about half the current lowest-price subscription plan.

[emmased]

Selfish SOBs

"we'll offer a low cost option if you give us what we want." How noble of them. Oh, and on top of that we'd have to wait a year! Why? So they can continue to overcharge in the meantime. This is why both companies deserve to go under. If they charged half as much as they do they'd have more than twice the number of customers. Can't see past their own greed.

[Jahntassa]

Do you even know?

Do you HAVE XM or Sirius? I'm betting not. I currently pay $13 a month for my XM service, and $13 for my wife's Sirius service. To me, that is WELL worth it. Granted I only listen to two channels on a constant basis (Lucy, alternative rock, and The System, Techno/Trance), but for me it's WELL worth it. Mostly due to, I don't have to go out and find the CDs. I don't have to listen to commercials (on those channels).

I get bored of my MP3 collection. While Lucy doesn't play much *new* music, I enjoy the alternative it does play. The System, however, gets me more techno and trance than I could get on my own, for less than 1 CD.

Please stop naysaying things you obviously aren't personally involved with.

[paulsecic]

120 channels

I've got 120 music channels on Dishnetwork. So why should I buy
a radio & pay for the same music?

[sharky3377]

SOB'S

You probably shop regularly at WalMart. Obviously the theory of half the price twice the customers is something you learned in business school, I doubt it since even the cheapest business school would have to be 1/2 price for you. I guess you haven't priced the price of a satellite launch lately either, I guess you think they must have paid half price for that as well. You call that greed? I call you clueless.

[TomMariner]

Yeah, I believe that (Not)

Lets see -- I was promised that if I paid $169 per year and bought an expensive radio I could get continuous, commercial free sound. What I got was commercials on most channels and dropping of some of my favorites.

The new deal sounds a lot like Cable Television -- In return for a monthly fee, I would get commercial free broadcasts that are of better quality. What we got is 700 channels with nothing on and families who accidentally started a cable transport firm at the right time becoming the richest in the nation.

The only force that will keep reasonable levels of service and reasonable prices is competition. That $6.99 deal is going to end up like "basic cable" -- Broadcast stations you got for free anyway and home shopping network.

The one good thing from XM is their Internet Access where a subscriber can hear the stations that were taken off the sattelite. If charges start for that, I'm back to free FM (or whatever replaces the sattelite radio guys.)

[bobby_brady]

Agree this is cable TV all over again

I do have a subscription and have to agree that this smells of the cable TV scam back in the 80's. Promise commercial free content, then slowly start rising prices and push in commercials, purchase competitors and become a close to a monopoly.

Regulators would do a service by not allowing this to go through, however intuition tells me the two companies have lined the politicians pockets enough where this will go through.

[Tom Budlong]

What I Want - Commercial Free

I think XM never promised commercial free on all channels, only on music channels.

Now if they want my attention, offer a la carte, and commercial free on all channels. I would pay extra for all-channel commercial free. (We must respect the necessity of either commercial or subscription revenues to keep the system functioning and pay the hired help). XM reception when driving out of range of terrestrial radio is a fantastic feature, but the non-stop blizzard of inane commercials on the non-music channels makes me want to toss the receiver off the next bridge.

And XM or Sirius can do that without merging.

[p.shearer]

Let them merge

I would argue that it is vital to let them merge. Satellite radio is a technology with a limited lifespan. Soon content and delivery will be devoiced. We will soon use IP devices at home and in our vehicles to listen to what content we want when we want.

A merger would allow the combined company to stay violable longer. BTW? how does it serve the public good to have the NFL on one system and the MLB on a different one?

[notgonnatellya]

I wouldn't be so sure

We are nowhere close to having wireless broadband from coast to coast that is available to you regardless of who you buy broadband from. In fact, most places don't have wireless broadband at all. As it stands, wireless broadband isn't where DSL/Cable was was 7 years ago.

Unless you think Satellite is going to die, then this merger is bad. Yes you'll have ala carte options, but as others have said, the benefits and savings will disapear as time passes.

[eurobloke]

Sounds like Sky and BSB again

Back in the early '90s, Britain had two satellite broadcasting systems, Rupert Murdoch's Sky Television and an independent owned British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB). By the early 1990's BSB was faulting because of lack of output and difficulty with transmission using an advance system, it asked the current Thatcherite Tory government permission to merge with it rival, to form BSkyB.

They were given permission and BSkyB came in being, now we have a virtual monopoly in satellite broadcasting, even with Virgin Media cable company (only around 30% of Britain is cabled), sports rights have gone though the roof and even a decent basic package costs around £20 (~US$40, ~?30) per month.