I hope the merger isn't allowed. Letting the future of broadcasting fall into a single company's hands pretty much ensures a monopoly.
But the big question is... which hardware will become standard? XM and Sirius have cut deals with various cell-tower networks for the mounting of their terrestrial broadcast network. Yep, satellite radio is typically received via terrestrial broadcast, at least for anyone in an urban area. Does this mean that one entire broadcasting network is going to be scrapped? That's a hell of a lot of scrapped lease time and hardware.
Also, how can the number of channels increase? They're already saturating the bandwidth of receivers. More channels would mean poorer sound quality. Considering that satellite radio already sounds equivalent to mp3 at 64kps for music and 32kbps for talk channels, I don't see how they can cram more channels in.
I've got to be truthful, the sound quality of satellite radio is horrible. But yet, I'm still a subscriber because I love the variety of content. Hopefully the merger means that eventually we'll have decent quality sound.
I hope the merger isn't allowed. Letting the future of broadcasting fall into a single company's hands pretty much ensures a monopoly.
The future of broadcasting probably isn't going to come from any one technology. Even if they get a monopoly on satellite radio, they still have to compete against AM, FM, portable media players, Internet radio, and possibly WiFi and WiMax for Internet radio, among other choices.
Unfortunately, the mind-boggling high cost of a nation-wide (or global) broadcasting network will limit competition. The barriers to entry pretty much rule out an up-start once the market is saturated. No investors will pony up the money for the necessary hundreds of thousands of broadcast nodes.
Even the two current players are having difficulty making money. Once merged, nobody is going to make such a risky investment as to fund another fledgling network.
Remember, _broadcast_ is the key word here. iPods and such are great but entirely different than broadcast media.
AM and FM aren't comparable either because their isn't enough room in the spectrum for comparable services.
The next couple decades will be dominated by wide-scale digital broadcasting networks. Eventually, everything will likely be wireless IP network based. But that isn't quite here yet. So the question is, would it be better to have a single major audio broadcaster or two or more major audio broadcasters?
I don't think the distinction matters. There are so many choices for sources audio sources now. Based on what I've seen, the short term path for satellite radio is either one or none. Given how they are bleeding, I just don't see them both surviving this. While it is partly their fault for being stupid with their money, the same fact remains that the future looks bleak for either company. If one or both providers collapse, then I doubt anyone else would pick up the ball for a long time.
As the mobile phone networks improve their infrastructure, they have a chance at a nationwide network in which you can get live audio.
You've got a point about phone networks eventually providing competition but the above statement is just ludicrous.
For instance: An iPod simply can't deliver multiple sources of live international news. Neither is it feasible for AM or FM to do so.
Sure, both are "audio" but what does that matter? A news paper and an encyclopedia are both informative "text". Yet there is a clear difference that makes them non-competing products.
Forward looking means that Apple sees the day when all TV goes through the iTunes; Network shows, movies, everything. All Radio goes throught the iTunes; radio programing as we know it today will be professionally produced podcasts (probably with adverts; that's why public radio is onboard first, they can do pledge-a-thons just as easily in a podcast).
You've got a point about phone networks eventually providing competition but the above statement is just ludicrous.
For instance: An iPod simply can't deliver multiple sources of live international news. Neither is it feasible for AM or FM to do so.
Maybe there aren't any feasible alternatives in the short term, but how much of a market is there for live international news audio? I'm not saying satellite radio isn't an interesting idea, so far, the market still hasn't shown it to be a sustainable concept with a duopoly. I don't think that it is in their interests to raise rates should it become a monopoly. For the majority of needs & wants, there are alternative ways to get it the same audio or news, even if there may be a delay in some of the more niche interests. If it's too expensive, I think it will quickly become the next Iridium.
I don't understand how a link to a response to a blog post is worthy to be considered a source. I don't think it's likely, but I would suggest "never say never".
Comments
But the big question is... which hardware will become standard? XM and Sirius have cut deals with various cell-tower networks for the mounting of their terrestrial broadcast network. Yep, satellite radio is typically received via terrestrial broadcast, at least for anyone in an urban area. Does this mean that one entire broadcasting network is going to be scrapped? That's a hell of a lot of scrapped lease time and hardware.
Also, how can the number of channels increase? They're already saturating the bandwidth of receivers. More channels would mean poorer sound quality. Considering that satellite radio already sounds equivalent to mp3 at 64kps for music and 32kbps for talk channels, I don't see how they can cram more channels in.
I've got to be truthful, the sound quality of satellite radio is horrible. But yet, I'm still a subscriber because I love the variety of content. Hopefully the merger means that eventually we'll have decent quality sound.
I hope the merger isn't allowed. Letting the future of broadcasting fall into a single company's hands pretty much ensures a monopoly.
The future of broadcasting probably isn't going to come from any one technology. Even if they get a monopoly on satellite radio, they still have to compete against AM, FM, portable media players, Internet radio, and possibly WiFi and WiMax for Internet radio, among other choices.
Even the two current players are having difficulty making money. Once merged, nobody is going to make such a risky investment as to fund another fledgling network.
Remember, _broadcast_ is the key word here. iPods and such are great but entirely different than broadcast media.
AM and FM aren't comparable either because their isn't enough room in the spectrum for comparable services.
The next couple decades will be dominated by wide-scale digital broadcasting networks. Eventually, everything will likely be wireless IP network based. But that isn't quite here yet. So the question is, would it be better to have a single major audio broadcaster or two or more major audio broadcasters?
As the mobile phone networks improve their infrastructure, they have a chance at a nationwide network in which you can get live audio.
I don't think the distinction matters.
You've got a point about phone networks eventually providing competition but the above statement is just ludicrous.
For instance: An iPod simply can't deliver multiple sources of live international news. Neither is it feasible for AM or FM to do so.
Sure, both are "audio" but what does that matter? A news paper and an encyclopedia are both informative "text". Yet there is a clear difference that makes them non-competing products.
Forward looking means that Apple sees the day when all TV goes through the iTunes; Network shows, movies, everything. All Radio goes throught the iTunes; radio programing as we know it today will be professionally produced podcasts (probably with adverts; that's why public radio is onboard first, they can do pledge-a-thons just as easily in a podcast).
You've got a point about phone networks eventually providing competition but the above statement is just ludicrous.
For instance: An iPod simply can't deliver multiple sources of live international news. Neither is it feasible for AM or FM to do so.
Maybe there aren't any feasible alternatives in the short term, but how much of a market is there for live international news audio? I'm not saying satellite radio isn't an interesting idea, so far, the market still hasn't shown it to be a sustainable concept with a duopoly. I don't think that it is in their interests to raise rates should it become a monopoly. For the majority of needs & wants, there are alternative ways to get it the same audio or news, even if there may be a delay in some of the more niche interests. If it's too expensive, I think it will quickly become the next Iridium.
Apple is forward looking. Apple is not going to put FM tuners and XM/Sirius in the iPod. Apple in not going to put a DVR in the AppleTV.
I don't understand how a link to a response to a blog post is worthy to be considered a source. I don't think it's likely, but I would suggest "never say never".