Van Hollen on Misguided Satellite Radio Crusade

What the hell?

Citing concerns about the effect on consumers, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has asked the Federal Communications Commission to block the proposed merger between Sirius and XM Radio satellite radio services.

In a letter this week to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, Van Hollen called such a merger “bad for consumers and bad for competition.”

Van Hollen made a big stink about needing permission from the Executive or Legislative branches to file an amicus brief in the Heller case (which he still has not done), and he’s on this crusade? 

Sheesh.

UPDATE: Van Hollen has filed his amicus brief in the Heller case.  Here it is. 

1. A whore for Clear Channel you are, J.B.

   If Sirius and XM don’t merge, one of them will eventually go bankrupt (probably XM) and then there’d be a monopoly anyway, only the remaining competitor would also be weakened.

   Just let them merge already.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 10, 2008 at 2344 hrs




2. I didn’t know that Van Hollen never got that amicus brief filed on the 2nd Amendment case.  This makes me furious.  I will not only vote against him in the next election, I will actively work against him.  He has been a complete failure as a “conservative” and has turned into a Doyle lapdog.  We sure got fooled on that one.

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 0420 hrs




3. Is there a consumer of XM or Sirrius out there that isn’t clamoring for the finalization of this merger as quickly as possible?  I wonder if JB felt compelled to actually ask the actual consumer of this product how they felt before he mounted his white steed to ride into to battle defending them?  Or perhaps the white steed was provided by Clear Channel along with the talking points that this was about protecting the consumer.  What a horrible disappointment this guy has turned out to be.

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 0703 hrs




4. Just like the recording industry, obviously clueless about the entertainment sector of the economy - it has to do with dollars spent & there are too many choices for anyone to have a “monopoly” on anyone’s pocketbook.  A combined Sirrius/XM will still be competing with on-air FM/AM; internet radio; Cable TV; Pay per View; free TV; Internet access; download songs, etc.  The point is, the consumer only has so much disposable income for these things - that is where the competition is.  You can be the only vendor of something, but if it is a nonessential item & overpriced, no one is going to buy it.  That is why the recording industry has tanked.

   Case in point - our family had XM Radio (home & car) for about $22/month - we dropped it when we upgraded from dialup Internet ($15/month) to cable internet ($55/month).

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 0805 hrs




5. Too bad JB’s (and Herb Kohl’s) view on this merger is so myopic.

   For supposedly educated men, they only see the market as satellite radio that is right in front of them, failing to see that satellite radio competes with compact discs, mp3’s, regular radio, and now the advent of digital radio.

   As RS stated, failing to merge will ultimately lead to monpolization of the market, decreased competition, and higher costs to consumers.

   JB is dead wrong (and dare I say, an absolute dummy) on this issue!

   Posted by on April 11, 2008 at 0821 hrs




6. Is it now same to say that JB sucks as AG?

   Posted by Aaron on April 11, 2008 at 1302 hrs




7. I meant “safe”, not “same.”

   Can you believe how close together they put those keys?

   Posted by Aaron on April 11, 2008 at 1304 hrs




8. I think you updated the wrong post Owen.  You attached a brief regarding the 2nd Amendment case before the Supreme Court.

   Posted by Nick on April 11, 2008 at 1340 hrs




9. No, that’s right.  I mentioned as an off-hand comment that he hadn’t filed a brief in the Heller case (2nd Amendment case) and I wanted to correct that.

   Posted by Owen on April 11, 2008 at 1416 hrs




10. I think a great point is made above about current customers.  I’m an XM guy, but I’d love to see the merger so I can get ala carte programming and access to things on Sirius like the NFL and NBA.  And I’d actually pay and extra dollar or two a month to get that. 

    Currently split, the product is good but not great.  A merger would help that.  If Sat radio truly takes off and is profitable, another firm will make an entry. 

    If Kohl and Van Hollen want to meddle, just force the combined company to do a reasonably priced ala carte service.  I don’t listen to about 100 of the current XM stations and don’t need them.

    Posted by on April 12, 2008 at 0917 hrs




11. access to things on Sirius like the NFL and NBA

    Linked article goes on to state:

    Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on antitrust, is also opposing the merger. He has said the deal “will create a satellite radio monopoly.”

    Do you think Kohl is sticking up for the “little guy” and if so is the “little guy” being stuck up for himself?

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070525/090758.shtml

    Key Senator’s Letter Opposing Satellite Radio Merger Leaves Out The Part About How It Affects Him
    .............................

    ......But what Kohl fails to mention is his own conflict of interest. As Orbitcast points out, Kohl owns the Milwaukee Bucks NBA team. Starting with the 2007-2008 season, the Bucks will handle advertising sales for their radio broadcasts, and pay a Milwaukee AM station for the airtime to broadcast their own games. This move puts them in direct competition with Sirius, which broadcasts NBA games, and could be seen as a conflict on interest in the matter, since it would behoove the Bucks, and in turn, Kohl, to limit access to broadcasts of Bucks games outside of the channels which they directly control and from which they directly profit. While the Bucks situation may not have influenced Kohl’s views on the XM-Sirius deal, and admittedly is a pretty minute conflict, it would seem to be enough for the esteemed Senator to rule himself out of the matter, or at the very least, disclose it. Even more so when one considers that Kohl’s campaigns for office have focused on his integrity and how he isn’t beholden to special interests. Of course, Kohl shouldn’t be singled out unfairly—there’s plenty of conflicts of interest on the matter on Capitol Hill.

    Posted by on April 12, 2008 at 0937 hrs




12. I really don’t think Van Hollen gets it, anyway, when it comes to this merger deal. How can he factor in “bad for competition” when the satellite radio business is only 5% of the entire radio market share? That’s just ridiculous to me. So is having two radio receivers in the industry and having to choose whether you prefer Howard Stern over Oprah Winfrey, or whatever else. If I’m going to be a satellite radio customer, I want to have the entire radio spectrum available to me. That’s good, not bad for me, the consumer.

    Posted by Jim Bauer on April 12, 2008 at 1005 hrs




13. Well...the Capital Times agrees with him...so he MUST be right.

    Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1452 hrs