New Page 2
 |
|
Satellite Radio Consumers Unite: Up Close with C3SR Founder Chris Reale
 |
George Washington University
law student Chris Reale may not have a
background in radio, but as an XM subscriber
who has also worked at a lobbying firm for the past
three years, Reale has taken a vested interest in
the proposed merger of XM and Sirius Satellite
Radio and the antitrust obstacles that come
along with it. As a subscriber who is concerned
about a monopoly situation, Reale wanted his voice
to be heard by the powers that will preside over the
decision, such as the FCC and the
Department Of Justice. Therefore, along with
five other GW law students, he founded the
Consumer Coalition For Competition In Satellite
Radio (C3SR). The coalition
made its debut in January
at the
National Conference on Media Reform
in Memphis, and since then has been raising consumer
awareness through its Web site, C3SR.org, and
Internet blog. The coalition also is in the process
of creating educational materials for
consumers that will outline the concerns involved in
a satellite radio merger, and partnering with other
interest groups and industry allies to work together
to fight the joint venture. As the congressional
hearings regarding the merger are being hotly
debated on Capitol Hill, FMQB spoke to
Reale to gain more insight into C3SR’s perspective.
What inspired you to start the coalition?
It was in the press for a while
that they were talking about merging. I’ve
subscribed to XM for about two years, and from
talking to different people both at school and in
the industry, the merger was something that
resonated with me. After deciding to form it, I
started networking the idea with different interest
groups. I went to the National Conference for
Media Reform in Memphis in January, and I’ve
been attending other meetings and getting input from
subscribers and consumer groups.
What do you see as the biggest negative consumer
consequences of the merger?
There are two main concerns
that are equal in scope. One is pricing, which has
come out in the past couple of weeks with [Sirius
CEO] Mel Karmazin testifying on the Hill.
That’s a concern I know is shared by many others.
Additionally it’s the different programming formats
that are available on both XM and Sirius. We’re in
the process of doing an analysis on the fact that
when Sirius did something programming-wise, XM also
tried to compete. That’s where you’ve seen
independent musicians and independent labels getting
more airplay on these different channels. If the
companies consolidate, then theoretically you’re
going to have less programming for those niche
formats.
If they combine, why wouldn’t that mean more
channels for the consumer?
They’ve already said that
they’re definitely going to eliminate some channels.
In the hearings, Karmazin was saying that it’s good
to listen to the NFL and Major League
Baseball on one service. And if it’s not
profitable for a monopoly to keep providing these
niche programming formats, then there’s no incentive
for them to keep that on as opposed to sports
programming, for example.
How do you respond to the
satcasters’ argument that they are competing against
all forms of traditional and new media (terrestrial,
HD, Internet radio, etc.) with the suggestion that
they are at an unfair competitive disadvantage?
Personally, and I think a lot
of subscribers will agree, that satellite radio is
not a substitute for anything else. It’s the only
mechanism that allows you to have portable, national
service. I don’t think there’s any other system
where you can drive across the country and listen to
the same thing the whole way. It’s a great service,
and it’s brought a lot of good things to media and
consumers. I don’t view it as competing with those
other technologies, which are good in their own
right independently.
It appears that XM and Sirius
had dug deep financial holes and suffered the
consequences on Wall Street, losing much of their
market capitalization last year. Why isn’t this
merger a healthier situation for consumers, since a
healthier company could mean a better product?
Karmazin essentially took that
argument off the table at the congressional hearing.
He said that he’s not making a failing business
argument. He basically said, “We’ll be healthy and
we’ll survive no matter what.” Originally I thought
that would be an argument they would make and that
was something we took into consideration, but they
took that off the table. So if there’s going to be
two services no matter what, then that benefits
consumers much more than one monopoly provider.
Mel Karmazin has a successful
track record of lobbying the FCC on big acquisition
deals (i.e., Infinity/CBS and CBS/Viacom). You
probably couldn’t cast a better broadcast executive
in that role. In your opinion, how much of this
issue will be salesmanship and how much will be law?
I’m not really sure. I know
that Congress thus far has taken a pretty
circumspect view on how this will benefit consumers.
Our hope is that it will focus on the law and how
this impacts consumers and the public interest, and
not how many promises Mel Karmazin makes that prices
won’t rise and that consumers will be taken care of.
Do you feel that Karmazin's promise to freeze
subscription prices is a solution to the problem?
Not really because the
satcasters have had a track record of breaking
promises. They were supposed to develop
inter-operable equipment that both services could be
used on, and that hasn’t come to fruition. I think
that consumers would be best served by competition,
and that has been proven over the past few years as
we’ve seen XM and Sirius compete for content and
subscribers. His promises are not encouraging in the
sense that those things are already being served by
competition.
Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge
said the merger should be approved if there are a la
carte tiered subscription choices and more
educational programming. Would these concessions
sway your position at all?
Like I said before, our
position is that the merger is bad, and we’re
fearful of giving power to a monopoly provider even
with concessions. They have a track record of
breaking those promises, so competition would still
be better than one monopoly provider with certain
conditions that they can interpret one way or the
other. If it ultimately comes down to either
approving the merger with or without conditions,
we’d obviously prefer it be done with conditions.
But there is no set of conditions that would make us
say, “Okay, let them merge.”
What is your group doing to educate consumers
about your concerns?
We’re trying to be as active as
possible on the Internet through blogging. We’ve
been hearing from consumers and subscribers through
our Web site. We’re also in the midst of preparing
educational materials, because I feel that over the
past couple of weeks, there has been a lot of talk
but not a lot of knowledge out there about what this
really means. There has also been a lot of concern
on the part of subscribers about what is going to
happen to their equipment. So we’re laying the
groundwork to get some of that information out there
and alert people to the potential problems of the
merger.
Have you been hearing from people about what
kind of programming they are afraid they’ll lose if
the companies merge?
We’ve been hearing a lot from
Opie & Anthony subscribers and a lot of
people that are fans of niche programming that they
think would be lost to the larger things that draw
more subscribers, such as the NFL, MLB and Howard
Stern. We hear from people that subscribe to
both XM and Sirius. Karmazin even confirmed that
concern at the hearing, because they’re talking
about how they have overlapping and duplicative
services, and how that doesn’t make business sense.
For example, right now each of them have about five
Jazz channels, and I don’t know if they’d keep ten,
from a technological stand point and also from a
business standpoint.
Are you working in conjunction with the NAB or
any other groups in support of your position?
We put out a press release for
support from interest groups, and we’re continuing
to work on that. We really welcome anybody. This is
something that came on rather quickly, because we
formed the group and then about two weeks later they
announced the merger. We’d like to work with more
groups and we’re continuing to try to do that.
What do you think needs to happen for the FCC and
DOJ to understand how many consumers feel about this
merger?
I think there needs to be more
education from the grassroots level and the states
and federal level. Getting people engaged, writing
letters to their congressmen, writing letters to the
FCC and DOJ about why they oppose the merger. People
need to share the anecdotal stories about what they
fear they will lose. We’re trying to work towards
both those goals. We’re just spreading the good
word. That’s our main goal.
** QB Content by Mandy
Feingold **
|
|
|
|
|
|