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

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Count me in the opposite camp on this one. I can't believe it has taken them this long to even get this close to merger. As for benefits for the consumer, from a Sirius side I see lots. I have had Sirius since 2006 and have seen the live sports coverage slowly dwindle on it. Initially, it was just the NHL since they signed an exclusive agreement with XM. However, since the merger happened in the US, I've noticed that NBA games have dropped off and many NCAA games have disappeared. Sirius' sports coverage is limited to all the NFL, CFL, NASCAR and some NCAA games from a domestic perspective.

With the music stations being identical on both Sirius and XM since the US merger, I see zero reason for the Canadian companies to both exist. If one of the Canadian companies was a standalone company (akin to a Canadian cable television provider), then I could see a benefit to having Sirius and XM. But when you look at what is offered on the Best of XM on Sirius and vice-versa (which is exactly what will be opened up once they merge) the unique programming will be on both. The only thing that will remain on one and not the other would be MLB, however, I had heard that SiriusXM in the US was working on fixing that.

So I see no problem from this consumer's perspective with the merger for them. In fact, I would be severely upset to see the Competition Bureau having a problem with this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Then let one go belly up. Are we afraid that some shareholders might lose some cash? Sirius Canada was thriving and wasn't going belly up. XM Canada was crowing in their financial statements about the improvements they had been making.

The reason this merger was done was to make more money for shareholders. Money out of consumers pockets.

Competition is good. The competition bureau should know better.
Now the problem with you scenario is exactly the opposite reason for merger. If you allow one brand to fold then those consumers with that brand's technology would be forced to buy the other brand's technology or revert to terrestrial radio, iPods, CDs etc. As we have seen with the US merger, they have not forced anyone to buy new technology. If you have an XM radio, you can still use and vice-versa. The only dual band one exists in Mel Karmazin's office according to Howard Stern.

So by not merging and allowing one brand to go belly-up, you are actually doing a disservice to the consumer. The technology is not interchangeable, so those with the wrong brand would have to shell out money to the other brand to acquire their technology. The Competition Bureau ruled correctly in this issue and I applaud their decision.
 
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