As someone who does not have either Sirius or XM, what happens to all the satellite receivers that current customers currently have? Does half have to change hardware to match the 'winner'? If not, then it seems to me that the costs of providing two incompatible services will be the same as having two companies, except for the administrative costs (billing, etc).

I have both. Looking forward to having it all on one receiver. I hope. I am sure I will get screw somehow. They will more than likley double the price. LOL LOL

As an XM subscriber I hope that the price remains reasonable and I don't have to buy a new receiver.

I suspect that the redundant channels will be combined so that rather than 2 80's channels, 2 hits channels, 2 classical, etc., there will be only one of each.

I hope that all the operations are consolidated in DC rather than NYC.

Not surprised you're blaming Howard Stern for Sirius and XM wanting to merge. He's the whole reason this ridiculously drawn out decision has taken so long. Everyone in the radio business hates Howard due to his RECORD BREAKING success both on terrestrial and satelite. It's companies like Clear Channel Communications that held this thing up, let's get real people. Trying to lobby, get senators to write letters to try and stop the merge. Did Exxon/Mobil have this much interest in the media or government? Now they make record profits, but that's not a problem? It's all about who you know in Washington or which good ole boys club you belong to. The whole issue was about it being a monopoly or not and it is clearly NOT. Clear Channel is terrified of this merger, they know that the future of radio is satelite. I know I would NEVER go back to terestrial. I'd pay whatever it takes not to deal with the ridiculous DJ's and hours of commercial spots.

This is the longest dragged out merger in the history of mergers.

How can Exxon/Mobil take a few months, yet this take 16 months? Lobbyists tried, but failed to stall this long enough so they would both go out of business.

Only people who own Clear Channel stock would be against this. Have yet to hear one good argument against this merger.

I have no idea how any thinking mind could oppose this if one knows the facts. The facts are that both companies have lost 6.8 Billion dollars since 2003. The facts are that both companies are still losing 900 million annually combined. The facts are that SATRAD is a great product that wouldn't be in existence in 2-3 years without the merger, due to the high capital cost.

The FCC FINALLY did the right thing. Martin is a slug for holding this back for 453 days.

Merger is great news! Bad new for investors is; once Howard is gone, so are a lot of us.

I have had XM for several years and am apprehensive about the merger. My rate has increased already in that time...no surprise there. Now that there is no competition, I'm afraid that they will feel that they can just charge what they want to. What am I going to do now, drop them and go to the competition?

I'm also not too thrilled that my subscription will go to pay Howard Stern or any of the big ticket exclusives. I only wanted some music channels and don't listen to any of the non-music programming. Something tells me that the a-la-carte package will end up costing as much as the full subscription, anyway.

A cynical subscriber.

I have had XM for 4 years now. The main reason why I kept it was to listen to the Opie and Anthony show. I also have a Dodge vehicle with Sirius built in, but it is not activated. As long as Opie and Anthony are treated fairly through this whole merger I will keep my XM activated and I will also activate my Sirius radio on the Dodge.

I'm a Sirius subscriber and think this merger is a great idea. There are no good reasons to oppose this. Lets not forget that the investors that own these companies have a moral right to merge so they don't lose their hard earned money. The government should not block legitimate business decisions.

Also, Rob Pegoraro couldn't be any more biased. Try writing an objective article instead of statist propaganda. How can you argue that investors should lose their money in bankruptcy court? Why would you value failure and shun success?

I agree with Edward. The only reason I purchased XM is for Opie and Anthony. As long as the boys are in the equation I am in. Sirius subscribers will appreciate the XM recievers, as their portable/recordable technology is more advanced. Oh yeah, Ron and Fez noon to 3 XM 202.

Thank God this is finally done, now I can MLB through my Sirius Radio.

The Department of Justice and the FCC are incompetent, as well as bought and paid for by business.

Isn't it funny how the National Association of Broadcasters lobbied so hard and paid so much money in an attempt to block this merger?? And why?? Because they are a competitor to satellite radio just like the ipod, internet radio, and cd's, etc. This is no monopoly for this very reason. Satellite radio competes for your ears just as every other medium. I have had Sirius for 4 years and haven't listened to regular radio since and I'm not looking back. I have been excited since day one for this merger. I would like to get all they both have to offer and want to better ensure they don't go under. If you don't like the pricing or what the combined company offers, don't subscribe. This isn't a necessity like gasoline or the airline industry who have had multiple mergers in the past couple years and have had numerous price increases in a very short period of time. If enough people cancel because they are unhappy, the combined company (Sirius/XM) will change or fold. I too was rather disappointed in reading this article. I read it because it was they first article to appear in a google search and all I got was a hugely biased opinion from someone who doesn't enjoy satellite radio like I do.

I hate the programming on XM. It simply sucks compared to Sirius. Ok bright idea, lets merge the redundant channels so they BOTH SUCK! For the record XM plays the entire cd where Sirius plays the hits. Big difference, some like it and some hate it.

But that's ok you and I won't have a choice anymore.

So the WaPo commentator thinks the merger is a bad idea. Does he even own satellite radio? I am a subscriber who enthusiastically supports the merger for the simple reason it will allow me to finally listen to baseball.

The merger is not anti-competitive. If the prices go too high or they start screwing people, subscribers will turn to a plethora of other options -- terrestrial radio, podcasts via iPod, etc

Perhaps try the product before you start bloviating about why this merger is a bad idea.

Why don't we just do what North Korea does and have just one network. That way we wouldn't get confused by all those different oppinions. I hate the way that Fox and CNN seem to see the news differently. If we only had one network then we wouldn't have to waste our time watching several different news channels, becuae we would know that everyone would have the same oppinion.

I think when the FCC was created there was a clear understanding of the importance of limiting the extent to which one person or company would control certain types of media. Somehow the lobiests have convinced our lawmakers that since there are so many kinds of media today, we no longer have to worry about monopoly control of the media. It's bad enough that only large corporations with a clear vested interest in maintaining the wealth and power of their largest stockholders control virtually all news sources. Now we are faced with the very real possibility that only a few, or perhaps eventually one corporation, will control everything we hear and see.

As long as they continue to carry all the programming on XM 202 I'll be happy. In fact, I wouldn't mind getting Stern along with O&A and Ron & Fez.

I am concerned I am going to have to buy a new reciever that will get the combined channels. What I have heard is that to recieve the combined channels you will have to get a new reciever. I have a nice one from XM and paid to have a mount installed in my car and have a portable boom box that it will plug in to. It is going to be interesting to see how they handle this - will they push for everyone to get a new reciever - and pay the tech companies a royalty for the new equipment sales? I suspect it really just flipping a switch (new programming code) which can be sent in a download package to recievers to make it work. There is going to be aflim-flam here

Agree with Tom, now we'll MLB on satellite ... don't know what business experience you have, but your dislike for Howard Stern and MLB appear to have clouded any business sense you may have ever enjoyed ... I believe it's called Capitalism!!!!!

How is it a monopoly? You can choose between satellite radio (for a fee) and terrestrial radio.

It all rolls into the same formula: If you don't like terrestrial radio, and the satellite service has what you want, you can buy it.

No one is being forced to subscribe to SATRAD. If you are a subscriber and you feel mistreated, then simply cancel your subscription and go buy HD Radio or an IPOD. There are plenty of us out there who love SATRAD and don't want anything to do with TESTICLE RADIO anymore.

By the way, I had a conversation with MEL KARMAZIN and he said he will release Opie and Anthony from their contract, so they can be EXCLUSIVE to TESTICULAR RADO.

I have XM and I'm uncertain. I'm afraid of programming consolidations not going "my way." I'm confused about how I'll suddenly get Sirius signals. Your colleague's article states that listeners "will get" receivers capable of both, but I'm having a hard time imagining that won't cost me something.

Then again, she also wrote that people can't buy "transmitters" anywhere but through the two companies, when she means receivers, and ignores the fact that they're freely available at Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.

My new car is satellite radio capable, but only Sirius, and I'm not about to pay two subscription fees until there are hard facts on the table.

If you believe the companies you don't have to worry about your hardware becoming obsolete. http://www.xmradio.com/merger/index.xmc
The programming combining is great. I'm an O&A fan, XM lost NASCAR so I'll like that change. I foresee the a la cart menu getting the sports fan. All major sports NFL,MLB,NBA,NHL at the regular subscription price. I doubt it.

The Satellite Radio snafu is a direct result of poor FCC policy back in the 1990's that established two different incompatible systems.

It was as if in 1946, the FCC decided that CBS would broadcast on one type of television and NBC on another, so that you had to buy TWO TV's to watch them both!

The FCC should have done what it does best: mandate a technological standard that both companies followed. Then automobile manufactures would just install a satellite-ready radio that would be activated for either Sirius or XM, or god-forbid, both!

Now they are forced to develop and sell (at a higher cost, of course) a radio that will receive both...

The Satellite Radio snafu is a direct result of poor FCC policy back in the 1990's that established two different incompatible systems.

It was as if in 1946, the FCC decided that CBS would broadcast on one type of television and NBC on another, so that you had to buy TWO TV's to watch them both!

The FCC should have done what it does best: mandate a technological standard that both companies followed. Then automobile manufactures would just install a satellite-ready radio that would be activated for either Sirius or XM, or god-forbid, both!

Now they are forced to develop and sell (at a higher cost, of course) a radio that will receive both...

Sounds like a lot of Stern fans have resorted to a blind attack on Rob just because he doesn't see why the merger should go through. Where does he blame Stern? All he said was that both XM and Sirius spent too much money trying to lock up exclusives like Stern rather than focus on making the service profitable.

As a 3 yr XM subscriber, I could care less about Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, etc. I happen to totally enjoy my XM programming because it gives me ACC sports and coverage of my favorite school's football and basketball, essentially uninterrupted, when I'm on the road and when my local commercial affiliate station screws up (frequently) and fails to carry a much anticipated game, plus it gives me darned good specialized music channels generally without mindless DJ's and commercials, along with the audio from the cable news I typically watch when at home. For those who like talk radio (sports and political) it's available, although I have very little desire to listen to it.

My main concern with the merger is how will my service choices be changed, and how badly will I be hit with additional service charges? A major hoped-for benefit is that when I shop for a new vehicle I can do so without having to be concerned about which brand of satellite radio is available in the vehicle being considered (at this point I would have serious concerns with acquiring a vehicle that offered Sirius only, due to the fact that ACC sports are NOT available on Sirius).

If the "a la carte" approach allows a satellite radio listener to select the services he wants to subscribe to, without paying an arm and a leg to do so, and without regard to which type of hardware he has available to receive the signal, the public will be served. It's not a monopoly - it's common sense - the competition is commercial radio (similar to cable vs commercial vs satellite TV). Today, it's totally absurd that hardware choices (frequently over which the buyer has limited control, as auto manufacturers have invested and been involved in the marketing of specific systems in their vehicles) dictate which programming choices are available to a specific user.

Are John Malone and Charlie Ergen setting up a dinner date? If XM and Sirius can be allowed to merge in satellite radio, should not Dish and DirecTV be allowed to merge in satellite TV? Much more competition in TV, with the telcos and increasingly compelling streaming video like Hulu getting in the game ...

I am happy with the merger - I can get ML baseball on sirius. Surely equipment from either company could be used.

Ok ROB, you just don't get it. There is a lot of competition out there. Ipod, MP3 players in general, CD's, regular radio, HD radio, Internet radio, and so on. Heck, my phone will stream music or play MP3's if I want. The problem is that regular radio sucks anymore and this is a huge deal for the consumer. I was born in 1970 and I miss the radio of the 70's and 80's and part of the 90's where I could find all kinds of choices in music and entertainment. Now I don't have to. I can drive accross the country and still listen to my favorite channels and have the variety I used to have and more. I even get to listen to all my favorite music, comercial free. Oh, and as far as somone complaining about not liking the fact they were paying for Howard or Opie and Anthony or other big ticket items, your not. Most of your subscription goes to pay for the COMERCIAL FREE MUSIC. That's how they pay for the music, you bonehead. That is also why the talk and entertainment channels still have comercials so we are not paying $19 or more a month. Although another great benefit of paying for the subscription is that there are a lot less comercials on the channels that do have them. Example, comercials on Howard's channels are not 15 to 20 to 25 minutes long as they were on regular radio. I think they are around 5. They are over before you know it and I find myself not turning the channel anymore when they do play the comercials because they are so short. It's the same on XM. I sell cars that come with XM and so I get to listen to both in my demo. Also, ROB, paying too much for a couple of the exclusive deals have turned around and bitten them in the butt. (Example, all the money paid to Opra for a channel she is never on except maybe 30 minutes here and there.) But the Stern deal made Sirius as a company and as a household name. And that is how they have grown from a few hundred thousand to 7 or 8 million subscribers in just 2 or 3 years. I have lost track how much it has grown. It could be 9 million by now. Also, I am not just a Howard fan. I also love O & A, Bubba, and all the music and comedy channels on both systems. I even love the old time rado classics. XM even has faster channel switching. I am also afraid of the fact that the length it has taken for the merger. The fact that regular radio is spending so much money to block this, proves it is not a monopoly. I also don't like the stipulations they are trying to have imposed. Such as a percent of the channels going to minorities or to regular radio. I don't ever remember Exon / Moble having to give a percentage to BP or another oil company. It just doesn't make sense, or seem to be legal, or be right or fair. Regular radio blew it and the industry as a whole knows it. It is their own fault. And if they want, they can start their own satelite company. Because why? Because this is a free country and this is not a monopoly you moron.

The bigger a corporation the better it is at innovating!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

My biggest problem is the time the merger took not the merger itself. I like listening to baseball and football so the merger is okay for me.
The problem I have is that I would have bought at least 3 new radios over a year ago and I have not because of the confusion over what radios will work. That would have increased XM by 3 subscriptions.
I'm sure they've both lost way more than 3 subscriptions due to this. This 400 plus days is a joke and if it doesn't get cleared up by the end of summer I'll cancel out of spite.

I have both, and I like both services for different reasons. I like having a choice: If I'm listening to classic rock on Sirius and they're playing a set I don't like, I can switch to "Deep Tracks" on XM.

Bottom line: I don't like the merger. Like another writer, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be screwed somehow, either on a receiver or a plan--It will end up costing more.

I believe that when economic conditions improve, another entrepreneur will emerge with a competing satellite radio service. It's part of the future.

And when some rich guy sees a way to make a buck or two, he'll go for it.

I've been an XM subscriber for 4 or so years. Chose it over Sirius for the programming. I do not support the merger.

Mergers beget homogenization and infexible programming formats which leave the listener with few, if any, choices or alternatives.

As others have said, that the companies agreed *not* to merge as a condition of licensing and FCC Chairman Martin is willing to let them ignore that agreement, makes any other promise by either company suspect.

Makes the case for HD (terrestrial) radio that much stronger.

I am a Sirius subscriber who likes the NFL and NBA broadcast games, some of the categorized commercial free music channels, and some of the news channels. Did I mention ESPN Sports Center? -- Yeah, that too. Do I see the merger as a monopoly? Possibly. Do I care? Not as long as I can get what I want and at a reasonable price. The 1st truth is some of the programming on the music stations (specifically the music I really like) could be a lot better or more alternatives could be offered within the genre, but all in all I definitely prefer it to terrestrial radio. The commercial free format, the ability to replay songs on the receiver, and the nationwide availability are my major sticking points. The 2nd truth is the market is "Satellite Radio" and within that market there will no longer be any choices - which means that the new company will be able to do whatever it wants to do to programming, to pricing, to contracts with celebrities, etc. without regard to what any other company, in their market, is doing. If you want the benefits offered by Satellite Radio - you are stuck with it or you can go to another format. When we look at Satellite TV we have options -- Direct TV and The Dish Network. If we look at Cable TV we have options.. Cox, TimeWarner, etc., etc. The monopoly is not in receiving audio media but in the format in which we receiving that media. Once you select your preferred format what options do you have? If there are no options available you're stuck with what's offered or you have to select another format. With that said, I would bet that most people have Satellite radio for the advantages it offers (some I list above). And we would not see any of the other options, be it terrestrial radio, HD radio, mp3 players as competitors.

Bottom line: As long as I can get what I want out of the new company and the quality and pricing are not compromised, then I am with it - but there always can be improvements.

While I am a Sirius subscriber exclusively so that I can listen to Howard Stern, I have no doubt that once the merger goes through, I will ultimately end up paying a lot more for my service and new receivers. I agree with earlier comments, at least concerning many Sirius subscribers:Once Howard Stern leaves, it will take me less than 15 minutes to cancel my subscription and go back to NPR for free.Commercial free music, Sports programming and other assorted programming available on Satellite Radio is worth about $5.00 a month to me.

Say what you will about the cost of obtaining talent - getting the Howard Sterns, Oprahs, etc to come to Sat Radio and get subscribers to try it out was a worthy investment in my opinion.

Now, with Ipod docks, hard drives, and even the pathetic HD radio as competition, Sat Radio has found the market not to be as big as thought.

The writer is in the minority here. Nearly all consumers want this merger. If you could get NFL, NBA, MLB, and commercial free music all in 1 receiver - why wouldn't you?

Also, the companies have agreed to hold pricing for 3 years and current receivers will not need to be replaced if you're happy with your current package.

Let's not even get into the other concessions to lease approx 24 channels to non-commerical, minority programming.

Seems like a win-win for everyone. Ironically, the only people against it are people who don't get the service and can't appreciate it AND the NAB. The people from 'free' radio are against it! Hilarious.

This is a subscription service with no contracts. Therefore, no harm to the consumer. If you don't like the service you're a phone call away from getting it turned off immediately.

Love the merger and can't wait!!

Sirius/XM will STILL compete with CDs, FM radio, iPods, etc.

They won't WANT to raise the price because they know people will bail on them if there is a FREE alternative. Pay $25 a month for satellite radio OR pay nothing a month for iPod? Hmm... hard decision, isn't it?

This is NOT a monopoly in ANY sense, because we all still have CHOICE of "pay" or "free."

Instead, we'll be able to get anything (or everything) we want on one radio. No more XM car kit and Sirius car kit in the same car. MLB and NBA on the same radio. Oprah and Martha on the same radio.

How sweet will that be?

Now, they just have to say "NO!" on the minority stuff. Why should they give their spectrum away for free?

And my combined radio might be forced to get HD radio? Big whoop! I'll stil block those channels and listen to what I choose to pay for.

I have had XM for 4 years and I simply hope I can get my music. I expect rate changes, but do not want to have to buy new equipment. I gave up on commercial radio when I got XM. Between my i-Pod, mini disc, and XM I have all the music I need.

I am actually glad about the merger. I used to only listen to XM via AOL Radio within Winamp. I bought a new car recently that came with Sirius. It took some time to get used to the new stations.

With the proposed merger I look forward to being able to get all the sports in one subscription. I also would really like pay per channel pricing as there are very few channels that I actually listen to and paying $13/month when my 6 month trial ends is something I will probably not do.

Rob, I often find myself agreeing with your take on things. Completely disagree here. Regardless of the reasons, I suspect a merged XM/Sirius deal will provide a better product. The dramatically expanded installed subscriber base (for the merged company), together with what should (eventually) be decreased technology costs (as compared to what the two spend combined now), together with (presumably) half the overhead, will result in more station choices, probably more packaging choices and all for what MUST be the same pricing model. They will have a monopoly, but they already know, I'm sure, what research suggests people will pay for satellite radio. And if the rates increase dramatically, they will go under because people will stop paying. I have a target price in mind of what I'd pay, and if the rates go over that price, I go back to plugging my iPod into my car and letting the subscription end. I love XM, but for the right price.

I have been waiting to subscribe to SATRAD until the outcome of this merger, so I'm glad we're finally getting there. I want the MLB from XM, the music from Sirius, and I *don't* want to have Howard Stern or O&A anywhere near my receiver! If the "a la carte" allows me to do get want I want and opt out of the ?#@$!*& that I don't want for anything approaching a reasonable subscription fee, then I'm all for the merger and I'll be among the very first *new* "FrankenSat" subscribers in line to sign up! Otherwise, at least I've still got my 160GB iPod, bay-bee. :-)

Waaaaaaaah, 2 companies changed their minds!
These are 2 bit players in all of technology. What is so wrong about them merging? iPod is a lot more anticompetitive. If you don't like the pricing or content from the merged company, don't buy it.

I am an XM subscriber and have been for 4 years. I enjoy XM the way it is now. From the proposal dated 6 months ago, little to gain from the merger for the end user.

Prices are intended to remain the same for what one already has. If you wish to receive Sirius as a XM subscriber or vice versa if you are a Sirius subscriber, price will change. Also will need the next generation receiver not yet available if you want to cross the lines.

No mentioned of MLB, NHL, or NFL being shared by XM and Sirius users.

Music stations are slated for merger or elimination of duplicate formats.

Public radio on Sirius or XM does not contain the popular NPR news programs.

Agenda may have changed by now. The original plan is not much of a benefit to me though.

I've had XM since 2002 and I listen to it almost exclusively. I have a receiver I can move from my living room, bedroom, cabana, truck and motorcycle. However, there are some things I would like only Sirius has such as NFL, Howard Stern, and Jimmy Buffett. But on XM I only listen to probably a miximum of 10 channels. The suggested prices I've seen for a small package are less than I'm paying now. I'm cautiously happy with the merger.

Finally. I think its great news and will allow listeners from both providers a better mix of programming. There is the question of the receiver's capability to accept both programs. Will they be compatible? Will they raise their rates? Will they go al acart? How about the subscribers like myself who have a Sirius lifetime membership, will that be honored pr pro-rated? There's is allot of variables. Is now a good time to buy stock in either company?

I am going to try something a little un- orthodox. I was introduced to something that has changed my life, my family's life and allot of my friends and their families lives. After seeing the health benefits I feel I should tell the world and open my heart to those that need medical or financial help or both. I know this isn't the proper channel to do so... and I apologize, but hey I feel it's my obligation to tell anyone who needs help or wants to listen. http://www.mymonavie.com/thehartleys. Thank you & God bless.

Rob is against the merger because he owns stock in Clear Channel.

As a Sirius stockholder, I really like the prospect of a-la carte channel purchasing. It would give Sirius a clear numerical indication of who's listening to what. Consequently, this data could be used to discern just how much "celebrity" programming is really justified. I've always felt that this market would eventually be driven primarily by sports addicts and people like me that absolutely despises commercials, not Howardheads. 100 M a year, indeed.

Another, possibly better scenario: XM will soon declaree bankruptcy. Sirius could pick up the pieces (complementary programming). Then we could forego the socialist "conditions" the democrats want to impose, and end up with a monopoly, anyway

"Zac" is writing about things he has no knowledge of. I don't own stock in Clear Channel--or in any other company that operates in an industry I cover. Like every other reporter here, I'm not allowed to make any such investments (which, given how the stock market is working out, has probably saved me a decent chunk of change anyway).

You're all welcome to say my conclusions are stupid, but I suggest you not do so by starting out with an obvious untruth.

- RP

What will happen to my LIFETIME SUBSCRIPTION with sirius that I purchased 4 years ago ??

I'm a Sirius subscriber and I don't see the difference in this than what the oil companies have done also if you do not like or accept change cancel your subscription this can only be good I think and if I don't like it I will cancel

Let me be the first to say that in my opinion, the blocking of the merger has been an attempt by the religious right to control the media. They're afraid of Howard having a larger audience. Investors just bought Clear Channel for $17.9 billion, and that was approved by the FCC in no time. Rupert Murdoch got to buy the Dow Jones, and that was approved very quickly. Gee I wonder why.

The DOJ has ruled that the merger is not a monopoly. So there should be nothing left for the FCC to do, except approve the deal, or at least vote on it already. If it gets voted down, xm will likely go under and we'll have one company anyway. But the fact that they haven't even voted yet, just proves how corrupted they are. What other companies have had to make so many concessions in order to merge? The FCC wants them to give up a percentage of their spectrum. Why, so they can still have a way to control the media? Also there is the 3 year price cap. Where was the price cap on gas prices when the big oil companies were allowed to merge? How about a price cap on phone bills when the telecom giants get to merge?

Don't underestimate how important it is for the religious right to control the air waves. Howard Stern was fired from all of his Clear Channel markets, just before the last presidential election, and we all know what happened after that.

One other thing I'd like to add to my previous comments, is that I don't know why anybody like Rob would be so concerned about the combined companies being a monopoly. Aside from all the other ways people have mentioned to get content, I can also go on to Youtube right now and get whatever music I want, for free. And Google, which now owns Youtube, doesn't have to pay any royalties to the artists. To me, that's borderline stealing creative content. Free radio doesn't have to pay anything to musicians either, whereas XM and Sirius do. So, that means the two companies have pay for a lot more than just Howard or MLB. Therefore it would only make sense to approve the merger, so the combined companies can better compete with all of the other ways that content is played. Even as one company, they are still a small percentage of the overall media market. How can that be a monopoly?

I live in the middle of no where, for years I had to listen to music, commercials, and DJs I didn't like. I did not discover until college the kind of music I truly love. After college I was forced to listen to something I didn't like again, when I took my first job away from the big city. I purchased my first Sirius sub 3 years ago and would never in a million years go back. I purchased a new GM truck in January and got XM free for 3 months and absolutely hated it!!! It was so bad I ended up putting my portable Sirius unit in. I love the thought of getting the Sirius channels on the factory XM in my truck but dread the thought of losing the Sirius music programming and getting the XM music instead.

Rob, for you to say that the two companies have been dishonest, is an idiotic statement. The original founders agreed to that, but the people running the companies today weren't in charge back than. Plus there are a lot more shareholders at stake, who voted in favor of the merger. Mel Karmizan wasn't the CEO of Sirius when the company started up. So, how can you say he's dishonest? Maybe you and Senator Brownback should get together and suck each other off. Things have changed with newer technology. Which means that the prior agreements should be waved to let the combined companies better compete. The original founders of our country allowed slavery. Should we have kept that the same, too?

In response to Jason's June 17th comments. He says that he would cancel his subscription out of spite, if this isn't cleared up my the end of summer, and has already kept from getting 3 other subscriptions. Well, this is exactly what the NAB, FCC, and religious right are hoping for. They are trying to bury the companies by delaying the vote. If they feel it is a monopoly, they could just vote the merger down and let the two get on with their business. Instead, they are keeping new subscribers sidelined as they continue to delay. So, by canceling your subscription, you let them win. Then we can always go back to repressed radio, with 1/2 hour commercials. Wonderful.

Tha Iran Hostage Crisis only lasted 440 days! The Sirius/XM Merger has already blown by that. Everyone who is directly involved (subscribers & stockholders) with these two companies that I have talked to is in favor of the merger. The 19 million subscribers should vote out all the opposing incumbants in the next election. Sirius should set aside a channel to discuss the politicians who were responsible for delaying this merger.

As a Sirius subscriber, I have not always been treated fairly by the company. I am devoted to the concept of satellite radio and want it to continue, but two companies gives me better recourse if I'm unhappy. Also, on the Sirius website you can see their proposed price packages after the merger and it is clear -- consumers are going to pay more for their satellite radio.