February 20, 2007 1:34 PM PST
FAQ: Serious challenges for Sirius-XM merger
- Related Stories
-
Judge allows music industry to sue XM Satellite
January 19, 2007 -
Senators aim to restrict Net, satellite radio recording
January 12, 2007 -
Sirius disappointed by holiday sales
December 4, 2006 -
XM buys into WorldSpace radio
July 19, 2005
(continued from previous page)
The National Association of Broadcasters is asking regulators to bar the merger, noting that regulators rejected a similar merger proposal from the country's only two satellite television companies, DirecTV and DISH Network. Two years ago, the NAB opposed XM's proposed $198 million acquisition of WCS Wireless before the deal fell through.
How will the companies defend their merger?
The defense will likely hinge on the definition of "competition in the digital audio marketplace." In announcing their merger plans, Sirius and XM said they faced competition from free "over-the-air" AM and FM radio, as well as from iPods and mobile-phone streaming, HD radio, Internet radio and next-generation wireless technologies. Complicating the defense could be the lawsuit record labels have filed against XM alleging that devices that allow people to capture music from XM's broadcasts and turn them into MP3 files for storing and replaying, like the Pioneer Inno, infringe on copyright.
How big would the combined company be?
The combined value of the company would be about $13 billion, which includes net debt of about $1.6 billion. Combined 2006 revenue was about $1.5 billion based on analyst consensus estimates. There would be about 14 million subscribers of a combined company.
What are each company's strengths?
New York City-based Sirius saw its subscriber base rise by more than 80 percent over the last year to about 6 million. The company has more than 130 channels, with 69 commercial-free music channels and 65 channels of sports, news, talk, entertainment, traffic, weather and other data. The company is the official satellite radio partner of the NFL, Nascar, NBA and NHL. Sirius also offers an Internet radio service that broadcasts more than 75 channels online. Sirius radios are sold in more than 25,000 retail locations, for use in cars, homes, RVs and boats. The company has a market capitalization of about $5.5 billion.
Washington, D.C.-based XM has about 7.6 million subscribers and more than 170 channels and broadcasts live from studios in Toronto, Montreal, Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago and the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville. XM also has signed deals with automakers to have its radios preinstalled in 140 different vehicle models this year. The company's market capitalization is about $4.2 billion.
Will Howard Stern get richer?
It's too early to say whether the companies' contracts with celebrities will be renewed. But with only one satellite radio provider operating, future deals would likely be less lucrative for such personalities.
See more CNET content tagged:
XM Satellite Radio, Sirius, merger, Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., satellite radio
44 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
have now
have now
There may be a ton of commercial radio stations in your market, but drive away from the cities and how many are there? How far away from your city can you drive before you lose your local station?
Satellite radio is different in that reception is the same on Isle Royale as it is in downtown Chicago. The particular stations are also the same in both locations. The number of satellite stations is many times the number of AM and FM stations combined in even the most dense radio markets. In fact these are points made in the marketing campaign of the satellite stations.
It is a monopoly. You will accept their terms or you will not have satellite radio. Period.
debt to finance the programming sorties. XM now has $710
million of debt on its books; Sirius $426 million. But both also
have plenty of cash. Sirius has tapped the capital markets six
times in the past 18 months and is now sitting on a cushion of
more than $800 million; Legal and lawsuits threaten and XM has
a cash hoard of $377 million. And so far the burn rate seems
sustainable: SG Cowen & Co. expects XM to go through about
$200 million over the next two years. What's more, analysts
trump, both companies have probably completed their most
expensive programming deals verbally."
Gerard Rotonda
debt to finance the programming sorties. XM now has $710
million of debt on its books; Sirius $426 million. But both also
have plenty of cash. Sirius has tapped the capital markets six
times in the past 18 months and is now sitting on a cushion of
more than $800 million; Legal and lawsuits threaten and XM has
a cash hoard of $377 million. And so far the burn rate seems
sustainable: SG Cowen & Co. expects XM to go through about
$200 million over the next two years. What's more, analysts
trump, both companies have probably completed their most
expensive programming deals verbally."
Gerard Rotonda
Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (formerly CD Radio) on 2320.0 to 2332.5 MHz and XM Radio Inc. on 2332.5 to 2345.0 MHz
So they both own 12.5 Mhz of bordering radio spectrum between 2320.0 MHz and 2345.0.
This is good news because it means they won't have to develop 2 seperate chipsets/tuners to receive the signal like with the Sprint/Nextel merger.
On the other hand, this says nothing of the other technologies they are using to encrypt or encode data.
I believe each service is using a seperate encryption method, XM is using aacPlus (From MPEG-4 part 3), but I don't know what Sirius is using.
There is more info on some of their technologies on Wiki here:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Satellite_Radio#Receiver_Technology" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Satellite_Radio#Receiver_Technology</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_radio#Technology" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_radio#Technology</a>
They do have an advantage in having bordering radio spectrum, and supporting the 3 encryption methods could be possible in a software update.
The other advantage of this is that if they hash out the technologies before they need to start replacing some of their satellites in ~6 years they may be able to deploy satellites that cover the full 25 Mhz, rather than 2 separate networks covering just 12.5 MHz each.
The trick will be creating a plan to migrate the services onto a common platform with minimal impact to existing subscribers.
With 25 MHz they should have room to broadcast music at much higher bit rates than currently on FM, and still have room for things like traffic/weather updates, licensing bandwidth to OnStar etc., and still have plenty of bandwidth left over.
I just pray that they don't use it for an opportunity to transmit 300 channels of low quality elevator music for $25/month.
Part of the reason they are merging is becasue agressive pricing and competition is causing them to lose money charging $13/month.
I had XM for a while and hated it. They almost never played mainstream music or anything I listen to, instead opting for a bunch of crap I have never heard and remixes of songs I have heard becasue the royalties are cheaper.
It is a pay-for service and they played radio edit versions of songs.
Some radio stations had no DJ's, and instead would just loop the same 30 songs over and over again.
I drove for 2 hours once without changing the station and heard each sone twice in even that short of a timeframe.
Even my GF who usually didn't drive my car complained about the quality of the service.
When I was in areas populated enough to have radio stations that are not just country music I usually listened to FM instad.
I have never had the Sirius service, but I have listened online and they do seem to have better content than XM did at least.
It would be nice to have the additional choices. The FCC probably won't let it happen because of their need to always "protect" us dumb ol' consumers......
Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (formerly CD Radio) on 2320.0 to 2332.5 MHz and XM Radio Inc. on 2332.5 to 2345.0 MHz
So they both own 12.5 Mhz of bordering radio spectrum between 2320.0 MHz and 2345.0.
This is good news because it means they won't have to develop 2 seperate chipsets/tuners to receive the signal like with the Sprint/Nextel merger.
On the other hand, this says nothing of the other technologies they are using to encrypt or encode data.
I believe each service is using a seperate encryption method, XM is using aacPlus (From MPEG-4 part 3), but I don't know what Sirius is using.
There is more info on some of their technologies on Wiki here:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Satellite_Radio#Receiver_Technology" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Satellite_Radio#Receiver_Technology</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_radio#Technology" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_radio#Technology</a>
They do have an advantage in having bordering radio spectrum, and supporting the 3 encryption methods could be possible in a software update.
The other advantage of this is that if they hash out the technologies before they need to start replacing some of their satellites in ~6 years they may be able to deploy satellites that cover the full 25 Mhz, rather than 2 separate networks covering just 12.5 MHz each.
The trick will be creating a plan to migrate the services onto a common platform with minimal impact to existing subscribers.
With 25 MHz they should have room to broadcast music at much higher bit rates than currently on FM, and still have room for things like traffic/weather updates, licensing bandwidth to OnStar etc., and still have plenty of bandwidth left over.
I just pray that they don't use it for an opportunity to transmit 300 channels of low quality elevator music for $25/month.
Part of the reason they are merging is becasue agressive pricing and competition is causing them to lose money charging $13/month.
I had XM for a while and hated it. They almost never played mainstream music or anything I listen to, instead opting for a bunch of crap I have never heard and remixes of songs I have heard becasue the royalties are cheaper.
It is a pay-for service and they played radio edit versions of songs.
Some radio stations had no DJ's, and instead would just loop the same 30 songs over and over again.
I drove for 2 hours once without changing the station and heard each sone twice in even that short of a timeframe.
Even my GF who usually didn't drive my car complained about the quality of the service.
When I was in areas populated enough to have radio stations that are not just country music I usually listened to FM instad.
I have never had the Sirius service, but I have listened online and they do seem to have better content than XM did at least.
It would be nice to have the additional choices. The FCC probably won't let it happen because of their need to always "protect" us dumb ol' consumers......
As independent entities:
-Double the OPEX
-Will have continuing double CAPEX expenditures into the future (satellite replacements)
-Plus, when you're Sirius you face satellite replacement cost SOONER than XM
-A lot of overlapping content costs
-Costs of fighting (marketing, advertising) in the same marketplace not only against one another but vying for attention against iPod, HD Radio, terrestrial radio, internet radio, not to mention up-and-comers in the wireless arena like VCAST Music. This is why you can't look at one SAT radio provider as a monopoly. It's the end product - audio programming. 98% of consumers don't care that the signal comes down from a satellite as opposed to a radio tower.
-Double the R&D cost. And the cost of maintaining two radio technologies rather than one combined technology. More hardware volume --> further commoditization --> lower equipment cost --> lower price to consumer, as well as the ability to concentrate on improving feature content (removes some of the intensity of focus on removing hardware cost).
It's pretty clear that the market size at current costs ($12.95/mo and various radio cost) is pretty limited. Personally, although I like the services both offer, I don't want to pay that price. So the only chance these guys have of attracting me is lowering their price or keeping it stable in the face of inflationary effects on competing technologies to the point where it looks attractive to me.
-There's another one: audio quality. There is a segment of listeners who aren't buying in due to the crappy encoding quality (low bitrate). To some extent, that also includes me. By elminating overlapping content, free up bandwidth to increase bitrate and make the service more attractive. If content were broadcast at least equivalent to high-MP3 quality, I'd probably be more apt to subscribe at the current pricing.
You have to be especially careful not to be seduced into the "big bad monopoly company" mindset in this case. I strongly believe this is a case where the consumer is better off, and this position is not one I'd often advocate.
Overall, there are a slew of compelling reasons why this makes sense both from the survival of both companies as well as benefits to the consumers.
There may be a ton of commercial radio stations in your market, but drive away from the cities and how many are there? How far away from your city can you drive before you lose your local station?
Satellite radio is different in that reception is the same on Isle Royale as it is in downtown Chicago. The particular stations are also the same in both locations. The number of satellite stations is many times the number of AM and FM stations combined in even the most dense radio markets. In fact these are points made in the marketing campaign of the satellite stations.
It is a monopoly. You will accept their terms or you will not have satellite radio. Period.
As independent entities:
-Double the OPEX
-Will have continuing double CAPEX expenditures into the future (satellite replacements)
-Plus, when you're Sirius you face satellite replacement cost SOONER than XM
-A lot of overlapping content costs
-Costs of fighting (marketing, advertising) in the same marketplace not only against one another but vying for attention against iPod, HD Radio, terrestrial radio, internet radio, not to mention up-and-comers in the wireless arena like VCAST Music. This is why you can't look at one SAT radio provider as a monopoly. It's the end product - audio programming. 98% of consumers don't care that the signal comes down from a satellite as opposed to a radio tower.
-Double the R&D cost. And the cost of maintaining two radio technologies rather than one combined technology. More hardware volume --> further commoditization --> lower equipment cost --> lower price to consumer, as well as the ability to concentrate on improving feature content (removes some of the intensity of focus on removing hardware cost).
It's pretty clear that the market size at current costs ($12.95/mo and various radio cost) is pretty limited. Personally, although I like the services both offer, I don't want to pay that price. So the only chance these guys have of attracting me is lowering their price or keeping it stable in the face of inflationary effects on competing technologies to the point where it looks attractive to me.
-There's another one: audio quality. There is a segment of listeners who aren't buying in due to the crappy encoding quality (low bitrate). To some extent, that also includes me. By elminating overlapping content, free up bandwidth to increase bitrate and make the service more attractive. If content were broadcast at least equivalent to high-MP3 quality, I'd probably be more apt to subscribe at the current pricing.
You have to be especially careful not to be seduced into the "big bad monopoly company" mindset in this case. I strongly believe this is a case where the consumer is better off, and this position is not one I'd often advocate.
Overall, there are a slew of compelling reasons why this makes sense both from the survival of both companies as well as benefits to the consumers.