Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Biased article much?

I'm quite surprised how blatantly biased this article is.

So, let me provide and alternative viewpoint:

The article assumes that XM and Sirius are the only competitors in the game, and letting them merge creates a monopolistic situation. This is wrong on several fronts:

- XM and Sirius have never really competed in Canada. Their prices distinct at the beginning but soon became pretty similar, and given what a subscriber was interested in, often only one service supplied what they wanted. If you wanted MLB only one was an option. If you wanted Howard, only one was an option.
- When satellite radio debuted it was pretty much the only pay option available. But it's competition remained vast; terrestrial radio is a MAJOR competitor due to it's zero cost and FAR better reception/size ratio (an FM radio is FAR smaller and more portable then the best sat radio receiver, and has staggering battery life in comparison). A major form of competition for many people is their iPod, why hunt for a sat signal when you iPod contains all the music you could want
- Lately another major competitor has arrived: internet radio. It comes in for pay and free versions, and due to the vast penetration of smartphones is a major source of competition

Personally, I signed up for Sirius US a few years ago to get Howard (before he was available in Canada). When my brother dropped his subscription (that we shared) Sirius wouldn't offer me any sort of retention deal. My smartphone OTOH had many options for commercial free music, so off I went. I haven't looked back.

Letting them merge won't effect the market in the least, they can't raise their prices much simply because their competition is so strong. Consumers have nothing to worry about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Not apples to apples?

Really? Is you basis on "not apples to apples" based on coverage? (clearly you can't mean use in the car since my cell phone easily fits in my car, and hooks up to my car stereo the exact same way the sat radio did, same with an iPod).

Well, against the "iPod" it's clear that the iPod has FAR better coverage, since it works even in a subway tunnel.

Against internet radio, for the vast majority of consumers the coverage is identical, how many places do you go in a day where you cell phone can't get a signal but your sat radio does?

Against terrestrial radio, for a great majority of consumers the coverage is also pretty much identical (sometimes better for terrestrial since it's building penetration is FAR better, ever try getting your sat radio working in an office environment?). First off very few consumers leave their "local" broadcast area very much. For those that do, there are very few places where clear channel/CHUM and their ilk don't have at least one live signal.

I've heard this "it's not apples to apples" complaint a bunch of times, but when you get down to it, consumers don't give a CRAP what the technology behind things are, they want music/talk, however they can get it. It's like saying gas and diesel vehicles don't compete with each other since their fuel is different.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top