Summary
If we thought that the nation's two satellite-radio services - Sirius and XM - would each become a long-term going concern in the foreseeable future, we would be at the front of the line opposing their merger. If there were any evidence suggesting that Sirius and XM's respective losses of $1.1 billion and $732 million last year would soon evolve into respectable profits, we would oppose their merger. If there were evidence indicating that their separate operations, which so far have generated cumulative cash-flow deficits totaling $10 billion, would eventually produce positive cash flows within a reasonable period of time (even if losses continued), we would oppose their merger. If their combined share of the radio-listening market were 34 percent rather than the 3.4 percent it actually is, we would oppose their merger. If the combined 2006 broadcasting revenues of XM and Sirius were 27 percent of the revenues captured by commercial terrestrial (AM/FM) radio broadcasters rather than the 7 percent that they actually are, then we would oppose an XM-Sirius merger.
But not a single one of these anti-merger reasons exists. Sirius and XM continue to hemorrhage cash and generate losses at rates that raise serious concerns about their long-term viability. Their combined market share hardly represents a current threat to the 12,500 terrestrial radio stations, whose politically powerful lobbying arm, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), is becoming apocalyptic over the proposed satellite-radio merger.See the full content of this document
Extract
Approve the Sirius/Xm Merger
If the NAB were so concerned about maximizing competition, it would not be in the business of relentles...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
