From satellite to Internet?

Last year at about this time, we opined that the Federal Communications Commission decision to give the green light for an XM and Sirius satellite radio merger was a “Sirius” mistake.

We’ve seen nothing to change that opinion – and we’ve observed anything but the “lower prices and more choice” that Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin claimed the merger would bring. He called it a “no-brainer."

“Hair-brained” is more like it.

As I attempted yesterday to access XM on-line, which had been available in the past as a bonus to XM subscribers, I was told that it is, indeed, still available, but as a $2.99 per month add-on to the satellite fee.

Even more disappointing than the growing fees is the collective amnesia that has swept XM and Sirius officials regarding “a la carte services,” where customers would pay only for those channels they want. It’s a service that’s long overdue for both satellite radio and cable television. The technology is there, but the corporate will to offer it seems to have vanished – if it was really ever there in the first place.

Corporate desire to maximize profits is not a bad thing. The real culprits here are the mutton-headed bureaucrats at the FCC – and in Congress – who don’t seem to have a clue about how a monopoly preys on consumers, but eventually comes home to roost. We had hoped that Liberty Media's bailout of Sirius-XM last winter might provide some impetus for business practices that would revitalize satellite radio. It appears we were wrong.

Look for continuing problems in the satellite radio business.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to spend more time with a few good local broadcasters – and their advertisers.

Oh, yes, today I also test drove a couple of Internet Radios – interesting gizmos that may have a real impact on all broadcasters, but especially the Sirius-XM monopoly.

Like I said, look for more tough times for the satellite radio folks.

Separating the wheat from the chaff

Our e-mail Inbox was filled with a variety of missives today – and one of them was like an old friend that we really didn’t want to hear from anymore.

Labeled with the subject: “Removing pastors from television,” the e-mail was forwarded by a friend and contained a cover letter and petition that warned “an organization has been granted a federal hearing on the subject by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) inWashington, D.C. Their petition, Number 2493, would ultimately pave the way to stop the reading of the gospel of our Lord and Savior, on the airwaves of American. They got 287,000 signatures to back their stand.”

The trouble is: it’s not true. Some 30 years ago, there was a petition 2493 heard by the FCC, but its purpose was not to remove pastors from the airwaves. Rather, it sought to “disqualify all religiously-affiliated organizations and institutions from eligibility to operate on reserved channels.” Basically, it sought to protect educational broadcasters (public radio stations) from an onslaught of religious broadcasters who were proliferating the educational FM band (88-92 Mhz). In the 1970s, public radio was still not fully developed in many places – including South Dakota.

It necessitated lots of technical and legal expenses in efforts to find other available frequencies. That’s why you’ll find two South Dakota Public Radio stations in western South Dakota at 97.1 (Faith) and 102.5 (Martin) on commercial station frequencies, rather than down in the “reserved” educational band between 88-92 Mhz with most other public radio stations.

In any event, the petition was denied by the FCC. Read more about it at Snopes.com.

Nonetheless, largely due to the seemingly endless capacity of the internet to perpetuate myths, this topic seems to continue. Many kind and well-intended folks get caught up in this scam, driven by people who see bogeymen behind too many trees and feel far too comfortable serving as embattled "victims." Their time and energy is often mis-spent. And that’s too bad, when there are so many worthwhile and important local issues that deserve their attention.

A Sirius Mistake

The Federal Communications Commission approved the XM-Sirius merger last Friday (7/25), bringing to an end a 16-month battle over whether or not such a move would be in the public interest.

South Dakotan Jonathan Adelstein was one of the dissenting Commissioners in the 3-2 decision, hailed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin as a move that will give consumers greater choice and greater flexibility.

Sirius and XM are the only satellite radio companies, and they concede that the $3.5 billion "merger" -- really a buyout of XM by Sirius -- will save them lots of money.

For the 18-million of us who are satellite radio subscribers, don't look for a rate reduction any time soon. The deal would freeze basic subscription increases, but you can rest assured the new company will find ways to get around that inconvenience. There were some compromises, but nothing that keeps it from falling into the category of a really bad public policy decision by the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC can spell m-o-n-o-p-o-l-y, but they don't understand its meaning.

For more background on this deal, read these articles from Broadcasting & Cable and the New York Times.

The FCC makes a Sirius mistake

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Federal Communications Commission approved the XM-Sirius merger last Friday (7/25), bringing to an end a 16-month battle over whether or not such a move would be in the public interest.

South Dakotan Jonathan Adelstein was one of the dissenting Commissioners in the 3-2 decision, hailed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin as a move that will give consumers greater choice and greater flexibility.

Sirius and XM are the only satellite radio companies, and they concede that the $3.5 billion "merger" -- really a buyout of XM by Sirius -- will save them lots of money.

For the 18-million of us who are satellite radio subscribers, don't look for a rate reduction any time soon. The deal would freeze basic subscription increases, but you can rest assured the new company will find ways to get around that inconvenience. There were some compromises, but nothing that keeps it from falling into the category of a really bad public policy decision by the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC can spell m-o-n-o-p-o-l-y, but they don't understand its meaning.

For more background on this deal, read these articles from Broadcasting & Cable and the New York Times.

Rupert Murdoch....pay attention!

Lost in all of the election rhetoric permeating the media this week was a rather quiet but important vote in the United States Senate. The American public sent a message to Rupert Murdoch and other corporate barons – delivered by our elected U. S. Senators – that we’ve had enough media consolidation in this country and that it’s time to put a lid on it.

It was a roll call vote, so there’s no way of knowing who voted for or against Senate Joint Resolution 28, but we understand that it was a near-unanimous decision. The resolution effectively rebuffs the Federal Communications Commission ruling last December allowing more cross ownership of newspapers and television stations in this country.

As we have opined in the past, growing media consolidation has several negative outcomes, including fewer and fewer truly local broadcast outlets. Left unchecked, the race for bigger bottom lines would further erode what we used to have abundantly in this country -- really good local media services. There are other problems, too, and a few are spelled out in this New York Times story of May 16, 2008.

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota spearheaded adoption of SJR 28 and deserves much credit for its passage. It’s interesting to note that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are among the 27 co-sponsors of the resolution. It should be recognized, however, that this was a bi-partisan effort.

The next battleground is in the House of Representatives, and we’ll be looking for South Dakota Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to step up and support HJR 79, introduced by two Washington state Congressmen, Democrat Jay Inslee and Republican Dave Reichert.

We’re contacting Representative Herseth Sandlin with our views supporting HJR 79 and hope others will do the same.

Who Needs Competition?

I am conflicted ---

The U.S. Department of Justice today approved a $5 billion buyout of XM Radio by its competitor, Sirius Radio. Approval by the Federal Communications Commission seems imminent.

As a long-time subscriber to XM satellite radio, I have come to rely upon ready access to music of the 1940s and ‘50s, the in-depth governmental coverage of C-SPAN Radio, wall-to-wall classical music, occasional forays into Bluegrass, periodic visits from talk-show host Dave Ramsey, and a fresh perspective on international news from the BBC World Service.

I couldn’t care less about most of the 100+ other channel offerings. So when Sirius and XM said that, if they’re allowed to join forces, they’ll start offering program channels a la carte, I was excited. This “unbundling” concept is one that many subscribers would love to see implemented by cable television companies, and one promoted strongly by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. Imagine paying only for the channels you really want! If we believe Sirius and XM, that may soon happen with their surviving radio services. -

I fear the cost may be more than I hoped – much more.

For the past year, I’ve had a gnawing discomfort about this “merger,” but my fears subsided when I considered the possibility of paying less for fewer channels. Today, when I read about DOJ approval in the New York Times, I Googled the topic and found an archived story on the Sirius-XM deal by Marc Fisher of the Washington Post. Now I feel worse.

My hopes of keeping only the satellite channels I want – and paying less than my current $13 a month – now seem uncertain. Fisher, in his piece written last year, asked more than rhetorically, “Can you name one example of a new consumer technology that was guaranteed to a single provider and still served customers well? (Don’t everyone say 'cable TV' at once.)"

Having now read his full article, my discomfort grows, and my shot at frugality seems to have been dashed.

I am conflicted and won’t know the final outcome until I get that note in the mail many months from now, from the satellite radio entity left standing, telling me about all of the wonderful new benefits of yet another media consolidation.

Sigh.

Taking on the media big guys...again!

It’s lost in the fray of presidential politicking, but there’s another less visible struggle taking place in Washington, D.C. – but it has far-reaching consequences.

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota has introduced Senate Joint Resolution 28, “disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership.”

You may recall the de-regulatory chicanery foisted upon the commission in December by the media giants, who want dearly to super-size themselves even more with new rules promulgated by the FCC. Chairman Kevin Martin unwittingly led the charge on behalf of the media big boys, approving rules that relax media ownership restrictions and allow cross-ownership of newspapers and television stations. Thanks to Dorgan, there is a bi-partisan push in the 110th Congress to once again reel in the burgeoning power of big media.

It's time for folks of all political persuasions to notify their congressional delegation to support S.J. Res. 28. Read more about the hazards of media consolidation as compiled by the good people at Common Cause!

Tracking the Media Giants

Media ownership remains a major concern. While the FCC marches ahead with plans to allow even further consolidation of bloated media companies, there is a move afoot in the U.S. Senate to create some restraints. With this in mind, we'll be tracking the ultimate outcome of S.2332, introduced last November. The latest report from GovTrack will be imbedded in our left-hand column under Media Ownership, and we encourage you to check out its status from time to time.

Merry Christmas, Rupert

Yup. They went ahead and did it. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) yesterday voted 3-2 to overturn the newspaper/television cross-ownership rule in major markets across the country. Read the summary in the New York Times.

That should make Rupert Murdoch and other media barons very happy. It lets them off the hook in markets where they've been operating under waivers allowing such cross-ownership, and it's sure to open the floodgates of cross-ownership all across America.

It's a sad day for local journalism. But the battle isn't over. A move is afoot in the United States Senate to nail the FCC for its transgression. There aren't many things I get excited about having Congress get its nose into -- but this is one of them. The public airwaves are too important to be left to corporate bean counters trying to squeeze even greater profits out of every market at the expense of the public.

Read the revealing remarks of FCC Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps. Their two minority votes just couldn't do the job. As you read their comments, it's apparent that much skullduggery has been going on behind the scenes; the Commission has demonstrated institutional ineptness, and I'm still dumbfounded as to why Chairman Kevin Martin launched this death march upon local services. It reached a new low for doing the public's business clandestinely and at the 11th hour....and later.

Kudos to Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Trent Lott of Mississippi for leading the charge to bring the FCC back to their senses. We're hopeful that South Dakota Senators Tim Johnson and John Thune will join the bi-partisan effort to pass S.2332, the Media Ownership Act of 2007. Among other things, it will correct the sloppy and irresponsible way the FCC conducted their hearings on media ownership. It will also breathe new life into efforts to examine the impact the media consolidation has on local services, and it'll finally give attention to the problem of under-represented minority ownership of broadcasting stations.

Local journalism, a bedrock of our democracy, is in peril. We need to find ways to engender an expansion of local broadcast services, and further media consolidation is not the way to achieve it.

Stay tuned.

Who Wants Bigger Media?

The Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote tomorrow on rules that would allow even greater consolidation of media in this country. Specifically, it would allow newspapers in major markets to acquire television stations in those same markets.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin -- who has some good ideas about giving consumers greater choices by "unbundling" cable television packages -- is way off base on the issue of newspaper/television cross-ownership. I can't fathom whence came the perceived urgency of such rules, but it's not hard to imagine the long and powerful reach of media moguls like Rupert Murdoch.

-

I've contacted Senators Johnson and Thune in South Dakota. While I doubt there is much that can be done at this late date to persuade Chairman Martin and the FCC to delay the vote tomorrow, the Senate can and should come together in support of S.2332, the Media Ownership Act of 2007. Among other things, it would require 90 days be provided for the public to comment on any proposed media ownership rules put forward by the FCC. It would also require a separate FCC proceeding to examine the impact media consolidation is having on localism. It's no surprise to anyone that truly good local service by commercial broadcasting stations has been diminishing over the past decade -- badly!

Hopefully, more citizens will contact their U.S. Senators to urge support of S.2332. It's an important piece of legislation that can have a positive impact on media services in this country. Learn more about media consolidation at my earlier postings about the FCC.

Merry Christmas, Rupert

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is apparently pushing forward with plans to “revise” the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. If it happens – and he appears to have the votes to swing it – he’ll be able to present Rupert Murdoch and other media barons with a sweet Christmas present.

They’ll have a clear path to owning a TV station and a local daily newspaper in the same market. Current FCC rules don’t allow such cross-ownership. (Of course, Murdoch already has a waiver to the rule and owns the New York Post and the television stations WWOR-TV and WNYW-TV in New York City. And there are other markets, too, that are grandfathered in the sweet arrangement.)

The cross-ownership wobbling is a retrenchment from Martin’s original plan, which would have opened the floodgates for media consolidation. Michael Powell, FCC Chairman in 2003, tried the same thing and got thoroughly pummeled by Congress and the public. Chairman Martin and his supporters are pushing for a December 18 vote, allowing just a four-week period for public comment.

We’re pleased to see Republican Trent Lott and Democrat Byron Dorgan joining forces to inject a bit of accountability into the process. They’ve introduced S 2332, the Media Ownership Act of 2007. It would require a 90-day comment period on any proposed media ownership rule changes. Not only would it delay Martin’s consolidation initiative until 2008, the measure has strong bi-partisan support and would also require hearings on local service.

If the Commission’s experience in Seattle earlier this month is any indication of public disaffection with the notion of more media consolidation, they’re in for a rough ride.

I think Chairman Martin may find a lump of coal under the tree this year.

Amnesia Perhaps?

Although I guess it shouldn’t have surprised me, I was taken aback that Chairman Kevin Martin of the Federal Communications Commission has such bad short-term memory. Martin apparently doesn’t remember the thrashing that then Chairman Michael Powell took just three years ago when he tried to update FCC ownership rules for broadcast stations.

“Update” in this case is a euphemism for tossing out ownership rules that are already skewed against the public interest and offer giant media conglomerates a continuing opportunity to stuff their pockets with profits. This, at the expense of many genuinely local radio and television stations that historically really have operated in the public “interest, convenience, and necessity."

Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal has weighed in supporting Martin’s plan. I took issue with their stance by writing this “Letter to the Editor” last week:

The Wall Street Journal’s assertion that media consolidation has “led not to monopolies but to a media landscape that is more diverse than ever” (Oct. 25, 2007) confuses variety with diversity. The growing media empire of Rupert Murdoch may offer a garden variety of pseudo-journalism and info-tainment, but it falls woefully short of truly diverse, local journalism.

Your suggestion that “free-market” consolidation might improve the media landscape ignores the declining, sorry state of local broadcasting in this country – almost as bad as network offerings. Your swipe at public broadcasting, which is often the only vibrant player in local radio and television, is unwarranted. Many of us pine for the days of locally-owned and operated stations that were a part of the fabric of the communities they served, producing content that genuinely strived to meet the needs and interests of the community – not just the corporate bottom line. There are still a few commercial properties that fulfill that role, but increasingly it is public broadcasters who have filled the void of local service.

Chairman Martin and the FCC would do well to further expand their efforts in encouraging more local broadcasting and abandon the numbskull notion that media consolidation will save the day.

Back when Michael Powell tried an end run to further "relax" ownership rules, even he might have been surprised to find media mogul Ted Turner opposed to the proposal. To his credit, Turner simply observed that further consolidation might have been good for big media – but it was bad public policy.

-

"When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas," wrote Turner in the Washinton Monthly in 2004. Admitting that he earlier had tried his own "clean sweep" of vertical media ownership, Turner observed that media companies have grown ever larger and more powerful, and that their dominance has become so detrimental to small, emerging companies, that there's just one alternative -- bust up the big conglomerates.

Let’s hope that efforts to quash the plan – and there are many – are successful. Among those leading the charge against further media consolidation is U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. Killing this proposal won't bust up the big media barons -- not by a long shot -- but it'll be a step in the right direction.

W$J wrong on FCC stance

Regrettably, the Wall Street Journal seems out of touch with much of America when it states that “a la carte pricing bears little relationship to the issue of violent television programming” (FCC TV, May 23, 2007). Suggesting that war scenes from a History Channel documentary or shark/lion feeding scenes in a Discovery Channel program come anywhere close to the gratuitous sex and violence that permeates commercial television today is disingenuous. The WSJ editorial further asserts that Federal Communications Commission recommendations for a la carte consumer choice would constitute an unwarranted attempt by the government to “dictate a private sector business model.” We ask our government to do that all the time. Have you noticed the seat belts and air bags in your car?

To Bundle, or Not to Bundle

The Federal Communicationse Commission has just released a report that reveals -- not surprisingly -- a significant increase in television violence.

And while I didn't become violent last week when I encountered some unexpected "adult content" on our televison, it did rekindle some long-time beliefs that support the concept of "unbundling" television program packages. Basically, that means subscribers should be able to choose only the channels they want in their home package, rather than paying for a bunch of channels they don't want.

By the way, the culprit channel noted above was one of the HBO channels. I didn't stick around long enough to see which one. I'm not a fan of Deadwood or most other HBO programs, but I am aware they've done some good programming -- albeit not enough for me to justify paying for it. Our HBO channels were thrown in as a temporary "freebie" -- part of the incentive to make us new subscribers to Midcontinent Cable in South Dakota.

About "bundling" and "unbundling" channels: parents of young children may enjoy having Disney, Discovery, and the Cartoon Channel, but they may have no desire for VH1, MTV, and Comedy Central. The fact is, their cable or satellite subscription bundles all of these together, and customers can either take it or leave it. If they take it, they're not only paying for what they want, but a lot of channels they don't want, too.

The technology is readily available to provide unbundled services, although cable and satellite services bemoan the fact that it will cost them money to implement such changes.

Cable has long been criticized, justifiably, for poor customer service. And while they've worked hard to overcome this stigma, it still haunts them. It's about to hit them over the head again big time, if they don't quickly come to the realization that there is rapidly growing public support for "unbundling."

I'm delighted that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is among those pushing for such unbundling. Other commissioners are supportive, as well. However, the real catalyst is a growing groundswell of public sentiment that cries for greater responsibility and accountability in the corporate offices of major cable and satellite service companies.

While parents and other care providers have prime responsibility to monitor television viewing by young children, television executives have some responsibility, too. In this instance, they also have an opportunity to be the "good guys" and take the initiative to support parents and provide ALL consumers with what they want.

Increasingly, consumers want "unbundled" services that can be selected "a 'la carte."

Let's hope cable television executives aren't asleep at the switch again.