FCC Nixes Satellite Radio Merger 277
a_nonamiss writes "Doesn't look like Sirius and XM are going to merge any time soon. I'm not sure how I feel about this one. Logically, I know that competition is a good thing for consumers, and monopolies are generally only good for companies. Still, I don't like having to choose a car based on which satellite radio service comes pre-installed, or considering whether I'd rather have Howard Stern or Oprah, because there is no practical way to get both. Frankly, it's probably all this exclusivity that has caused me not to purchase either system." From the article: "Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told reporters after an FCC meeting that the Commission would not approve a merger between satellite radio rivals Sirius and XM Radio... When the FCC initially licensed the two satellite radio companies in 1997, there was language in the licensing barring one from acquiring control of the other... Even if the FCC were to have a change of heart..., it would still have to pass antitrust scrutiny by the Department of Justice."
Go with logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Go with what your brain knows to be true, not what your heart desires for the short-term.
So don't. Either choose your radio service based on what is installed in the car, or have a satellite radio system for whichever system you want installed by a third-party store. Problem solved!
Actually, there's really not a lot of exclusivity between the two services. They both have rock stations, rap stations, country stations, etc. I didn't even know that Oprah had a show on XM, and I only know that Stern has a show on Sirius because of all of the hoopla around him leaving the broadcast airwaves. I think that the NFL prefers one service over another, and past that, I really don't know of anything else except maybe some talk personalities that I've probably never heard of.
So as long as the services are separate, you'll have to live without either Oprah or Stern (neither of which, in my humble opinion, is much of a sacrifice). But each service also has to be price-competitive and service-competitive to keep you from switching. They have to periodically roll out new features and improve the quality of existing features to keep up with the other. And they have to pay Joe Talkshow a decent salary to keep him from going to the other. Those things, again in my humble opinion, are preferable to having Oprah and Stern on just one service.
That antitrust scrutiny is there for a reason, and in this case, it's very well justified.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yech! (Score:4, Funny)
Frankly, it's the idea of giving any of my money to either Howard Stern or Oprah that has held me back from getting satellite radio service.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Respectfully, I think the statement above argues for the merger, not against. Also, I think the FCC really blew it when they initially allowed this service and mandated that no mergers would be allowed from the get go. With only two services going in as startups on a brand new technology being released to the public, you are almost guaranteeing that one will fail eventually. It might be a different story if there had been a coup
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fantastic point! Choice is a great equalizer. Let the market decide if the merger is desirable. If both XM and Sirius were available in one device the market could decide by sheer number of those that subscribe to both as to whether the merger s
Re:Go with logic (and this decision shows none) (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the tin foil hatter in me would probably suggest that big radio conglomerates like ClearChannel are actively lobbying behind the scenes to make sure that Sirius and XM can never join forces - in the hopes that they successfully kill them both, to allow re-entry into the market by those that missed the boat the first time.
Personally, I love my XM, and don't ever listen to local radio any more. More choice, less commercials, NHL radio broadcasts from several different markets every night? Why would I ever go back. Commercial radio listening is dropping like so many "buggy whip manufacturers 3 year outlook" and they know damned well that Satellite is taking a big chunk. (Not all, as others have already suggested, iPods and mp3 players are also changing how people listen to music).
One or the other is going to go belly up, and then what is the FCC going to say? "No, you're not allowed to woo former customers, because that would create a monopoly?"
How stupid is that?
I got your logic, hanging right here... (Score:5, Insightful)
We just saw a decade of media consolidation at a level unseen outside of the Kremlin, and all of a sudden, the FCC is gonna start watching out for the consumer? Please.
The FCC has abrogated its responsibility to Americans a long time ago. Their "protection" of the citizens' ownership of the broadcast spectrum disappeared faster than an envelope full of hundreds down Duke Cunningham's (R, CA) jacket pocket. Maybe, just maybe, if a couple of the paleo-liberals like my boy Dennis Kucinich (crazy as he is) put the fear of god back into the hearts of the cake-eaters who currently own the media with his earnest (if improbable, and unworkable) threat of a return to "Fairness" (Fairness! Perish the thought!!) then we might see a few cracks in the walls of the Great Fortress of Trickle-Down Truthiness known as the Media. And maybe, when that happens, we might again see a little daylight between what the consumers of information in this country want and what our government will allow us to have.
Of course, I always hold out the hope that some leaders will emerge that have a few shreds of decency, and that they might get elected, but then again, I'm high.
Re:Go with logic (and this decision shows none) (Score:4, Informative)
The info below via Wikipedia:
Clear Channel programming agreement
As part of terrestrial radio giant Clear Channel Communications' early investment into XM in 1998, the companies entered into agreements which provided for certain programming and director designation arrangements as long as Clear Channel retained the full amount of its original investment in XM. One consequence of this was that XM had (and still has) exclusive programming rights to all Clear Channel content, including popular national shows like Glenn Beck and Coast to Coast AM. In June 2003, Clear Channel entered into a forward sales agreement relating to its ownership of XM. During the third quarter of 2005, Clear Channel and XM arbitrated the impact of this agreement on the Operational Assistance Agreement and the Director Designation Agreement. The Arbitration Panel decided that the Operational Assistance Agreement would remain in effect, including Clear Channel's right to receive a revenue share of commercial advertising on programming it provides to XM, but declined to enforce the Director Designation Agreement. Per the original agreement, Clear Channel has the right to program 409.6 kbit/s of XM bandwidth, including forcing XM to include commercial advertising. The current plans for this bandwidth will include up to 5 music channels including: XM11 Nashville!, XM21 KISS, XM22 Mix, XM24 Sunny, and the relaunch of WSIX on XM161 plus the existing talk channel programming (XM165 Talk Radio, XM152 Extreme XM, XM142 Fox Sports Radio, and XM173 WLW). Plans to introduce new regional based talk channels, which would have featured a local 2-3 minute newscast for each area of the country, were cancelled. The music channel advertising is expected to be limited to the 5-6 minute per hour maximum that was in place prior to XM taking its music channels commercial-free in 2004.
Seen as a blow to XM's 100% commercial-free music channel status, XM Executive Vice President of Programming Eric Logan released a programming announcement to XM subscribers on the company's website that reiterated XM's commitment to commercial-free music while noting that XM still had the most commercial-free music and that more commercial-free music channels will be added in the near future to ensure that XM will still have more commercial-free music than competitor Sirius Satellite Radio. On April 17, 2006, XM launched US Country (XM17), Flight 26 (XM26), XM Hitlist (XM30) and Escape (XM78) to provide commercial free music in the formats of the Clear Channel programmed music channels which were going to begin airing commercials. In response, Sirius has displayed that they are the only satellite radio provider that is 100% commercial free with music. Both XM and Sirius air commercials on their news, talk, and sports channels.
The Clear Channel forward sales agreement with Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc is set to expire in 2008, at which time Clear Channel is expected to deliver to Bear Stearns over 8.3 million shares in XM -- which is their original investment -- however Clear Channel withholds the right to settle with cash. If Clear Channel settles with shares, then it would be expected at that time that Clear Channels' Operational Assistance Agreement with XM would terminate, along with any and all programming provided by Clear Channel.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait a sec. I thought by purchasing the subscription, that eliminated the commercials. Why would I buy a special receiver and surrender yet another monthly subscription fee, just to listen to compressed audio that sounds worse than the mp3s I rip off my own cds?
No. The radio you bought allows you to decrypt the digital data that are being broadcast all over the country. You are paying for the right to be able to decrypt those signals.
The FM radio in your car can be built by anybody--the technology is essentially 'open source' in this sense. Therefore, the only income those stations have is from donations (yea, right) and by advertisers.
Just as cable has commercials (longer, more annoying) Sat radio has them too. There are many, many stations that are commercial f
Re: (Score:2)
You make some very good points and I lean toward agreeing with you, but at the same time, I'm not quite certain.
For instance, why is AM/FM radio not considered a legitimate competitor to satellite? Considered as a single "radio" market, neither XM nor Sirrius have significant marketshare, nor would they after a merger (well, I assume, I have no numbers, but I also have only one aquaintence with satellite radio). Sure
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are places where neither really works, but satellite is fine. Almost the only places where the reverse is true are underground or outside the aim of the satellite's antenna[e?].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go with logic (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I think that the NFL prefers one service over another, and past that, I really don't know of anything else except maybe some talk personalities that I've probably never heard of."
Its not that the NFL 'prefers' one over the other, its that the NFL is only on one (Sirius), while other sports (baseball, hockey, college sports) are only on the other (XM). Thats where people get upset over having to choose between one or the other, if you are a big sports fan you have to choose between listening to football
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but why are they upset at anyone other than the agencies (like the NFL, NBA etc) who are signing these exclusivity contracts? They aren't good for the consumer, after all. They serve only to pad certain corporate pockets. Guess it's just the irrationality of the yokels who consume this content. Note that I realize it doe
No Exclusivity? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, there's really not a lot of exclusivity between the two services.
That completely depends on what you listen to. If you are looking for generic "rock" channels or "country" music then you will find both on the two services. But if you are like me and bought satellite radio so you can still catch the sporting events on those 12 hour road trips then you had better decide what you like best.
If you like college sports, MLB or NHL then you had better choose XM. If you like NFL or NBA then you had better choose Sirius. There is no way to listen to college football and later th
Re:Go with logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Standard broadcast radio and cable TV have competition between channels, not between technologies. Cable has the local providers as well, acting as intermediaries to sell access to the stations to the end users. You don't have to have a separate TV to watch CBS and ABC since they both come in on the same technology.
There's not even a problem selling various levels of access -- you can opt for premium channels or not, and often pick and choose channel-by-channel. Sure, there's "piracy," but the business is still profitable.
Satellite radio needs to adopt this type of competition. The monolithic system it's using now is braindead, for exactly the reason that Sirius and XM would consider merging if they'd been permitted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You bring up the NFL and that reminds me of another issue that is quite common. The Dish Network's stranglehold over NFL to the point where if you watch the NFL on cable you get 5-6 games a week, this is in a sporting even that has easily double that. Don't live in Boston? You're not getting the Patriots. Don't live in Green bay? You'll only see your packers a couple times a year. So who is helped out by this contract? Dish Network. Who is hurt? Everyone else.
The problem is this id
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sirius then of course has Stern's channels, which offer more programming than just his show. There are two other 4 hour 'shock jock' talk shows with Bubba the Love Sponge and Ferrell. Then a ton of once a week shows that they run as well. XM has Opie and Anthony which I understand is also simocast on
It just doesn't matter... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It just doesn't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
XM Radio truly gives the average American an opportunity to hear music they never would even know how to find, and that's a good thing. I'm willing to pay $10 a month so serious music fiends can play good music without the undo influence of payola and advertiser pressure.
Oh, and yes, I've found tons of artists I never heard of on XM Radio, some so obscure you can't even find it on any common P2P network.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, XM Radio is like going to a small obscure music venue - DJ's on XM Radio actually go to these venues, I've met them. I don't have the time or energy to go to bars every night listening to music, but... XM Radio is the next best thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It just doesn't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and my "ridiculous contract" is like $6/month. I hardly have any cheaper content subscriptions.
Open standards (Score:5, Interesting)
You could solve this with a monopoly offering a single proprietary solution.
Or you could enforce that both Sirius and XM adhere to and publish an open standard, such that a single receiver device can be used to tune in both. If the FCC had balls and were ethical, that's what they'd have done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And then some clever entrepeneur makes a cheap receiver that receives both, but for free. Both XM and Sirrius would then be forced to make up their money via advertising.
No thanks. The appeal of satellite radio is partially in the lack of advertising. I don't know how long this will last (remember that cable TV started out practically ad-free too), but it'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point here is that both stations control all three areas - content, broadcast, and receivers. Look at your television:
Content producers make the stations - so you either have advertising models (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, etc) or pay for models - (pay per view, HBO, Showtime, etc)
Middle-men take the various content signals and consolidate them to their network - cable providers, direct TV, phone companies, and now things like Apple TV. Lockouts are put in p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And he'll go to jail. Do you have the slightest idea how these things work?
Yeah, just like how the guy who cracked DVD encryption went to jail, and everyone stopped copying DVD movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Open standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Forcing a company to alter their product with the force of law is never ethical. Besides, this isn't a service using public airwaves. These are private satellites broadcasting to private subscribers. The government has no place in telling either XM or Sirius what they can and cannot do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll tell you what is unethical. The government telling me what I can and cannot do with electromagnetic signals that private companies beam right into my house without my permission.
Re: (Score:2)
What's not ethical about that?
The government is acting at the behest of the people. The people want broadcast services. Society is better off when we can send information around without having to use wires all the time. So, if we want to be able to send information without wires, we, as a society, need to have some rules abo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that they are pushing their signals at me. They are sending me signals without me asking for it. Then the FCC says I cannot do whatever I want with the signals people sent me without me asking for it. It's like someone pushed a newspaper under my door and the FCC said I cannot read it unless I pay a $99.95/month subscription.
If they don't want me to decode their signal, they shouldn't beam that signal at me.
I bet your hat is shiny. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's not like that. A newspaper is an object. By it's very nature, the only place it is is where you put it.
Radio signals are not objects. When you broadcast a radio signal, by definition, it goes EVERYWHERE. That's what makes it useful.
If they don't want me to decode their signal, they shouldn't beam that signal at me.
OK, they don't want you to decode their signal, *AND* they aren't beaming it at you either. The signal is broadcast. It goes everywhere. Since your apparent reasoning is that you should be allowed to decode signals that are beamed at you, and the signal is not beamed at you, I guess we agree that you don't have any inherent right to decode the signal now, do you?
We really shouldn't be talking about decoding the signal in the first place. You're not prohibited from decoding the signal because there's something special about signals themselves. What is being protected is the programming. The satellite company or whoever is providing programming to authorized recipients. The means of transmission happens to be EM radiation. You're not allowed to receive programming transmitted by EM radiation that happens to go through your house any more than you're allowed to receive programming transmitted by cable that happens to be buried in your back yard. And that's a MUCH better example than your newspaper one - it's like a cable company ran a cable through your backyard, and the law requires that you actually pay for cable to decode the signal.
There's also another way to look at this. And that is, the radio spectrum in your house IS NOT YOURS. By decoding signals on spectrum that you don't own without the spectrum owner's permission, you're stealing their spectrum. Remember that owning land doesn't afford you unlimited property rights to all space above and below that surface. Some things - like air - are common, and radio spectrum is one of those things.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were ethical, portions of the radio spectrum would be handed out to those who will best serve society, not those who pay the most money in an auction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's whoever bids the highest.
Re: (Score:2)
if a Chinese company owned the satellites, the FCC wouldn't really be able to stop them, unless they had US-based assets as well (like, say, a sales office, or retail distribution facilities, and
Re: (Score:2)
So the FDA's protections of the consumer with standards for drugs are unethical? Some people are glad that the unethical government forces drug companies to find and publish side effects.
Besides, this isn't a service using public airwaves.
By the FCC definition, all the EM spectrum belongs to the public (though they monitor and divy it up for out benefit). Thus, by the unethical governemnt you hate, all airwaves (includin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FM or AM? (Score:3, Informative)
What if, during the early days of broadcast TV, you had to chose between UHF and VHF? Or, with terestrial radio, FM and AM?
Seems kinda screwy!!
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm happy with just Sirius. They provide more than enough content to keep me interested on even the longest trip. And as for having to choose a car based on sat radio, that's just silly. You can adapt either system to most factory units with the appropriate adapters. Of course all of my Hondas have their stock sound ripped out and replaced anyway, so
Re: (Score:2)
There's already quite a few decks that will play either. However, you still have to buy a service specific tuner, antenna and then the subscription. The front end however can play either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a funny ol' world (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of the reasons, it looks awfully funny to those outside.
Re:It's a funny ol' world (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T gives much, much more money to politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Satelite radio?! What's that?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever listened to satalite radio? (Score:4, Interesting)
- I live near Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Needless to say, the selection of stations is not exactly the broadest. Definite XM advantage here.
- I frequently drive through areas with even LESS of a selection of stations than Eau Claire. XM is a godsend when you'd otherwise be spending hours driving through, say, Nebraska, listening to Country or Country.
- No commercials on (most) XM stations! Listening to radio is much nicer when you're not constantly interrupted with whatever the radio promotion of the week is.
- NO MORNING SHOWS! Well, actually, there are morning shows, but they don't TAKE OVER your regular radio stations and prevent you from listening to actual music.
Now, maybe you personally don't want to pay for radio. That's fine. But there is no shortage of reasons why someone would be willing to pay for the features satellite radio offers over regular broadcast stations.
Re: (Score:2)
Stern or Oprah? (Score:2)
Is there anyone on the planet who wants to listen to BOTH Howard Stern AND Oprah?
I would think the desire for one would automatically exclude the other.
Re:Stern or Oprah? (Score:5, Funny)
No, but you could have two people, each who want to listen to one of the two, but who would also like to share a sattelite radio service.
How could such a mysterious circumstance come about? How should I know; I'm a slashdotter too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know either, but I can tell you that Stern fans do not marry Oprah fans. Their DNA would magnetically repel them from each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the other nicely logical responses around here there is the following: Lots of people in both camps probably listen to the radio show of the other camp so that they can know what to complain about around the water cooler instead of working.
(Hooray for slashdot, I require neither of those lames.)
Decisions (Score:2)
TIme for a hybrid player (Score:3, Insightful)
Choose your car based on pre-installed satellite radio? That's hard core.
Anyone else see this leading to more oversight. (Score:2, Interesting)
Solved problem. (Score:2, Funny)
Break out common functionality and put it in a superclass which both children inherit.
Satalite Radio should be like TV and regular radio (Score:5, Insightful)
Television is distributed in that manner, as well as by cable and satellite distribution companies which are (mostly) separate from the stations.
Satellite radio is weird, because the entity you pay for distribution is the same entity providing the programming.
So, let XM and Sirius form and spin-off a third company that handles the satellite infrastructure.
Let various manufacturers sell satellite radio receivers.
Keep XM and Sirius as separate providers of programming, much like HBO and Cinemax. As a consumer, you can buy one, the other, or both, and get it all on one receiver.
Re:Satalite Radio should be like TV and regular ra (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Choice is a good thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sirius wants to merge because their market cap is significantly higher than XM's, but XM ha
Re: (Score:2)
Damn You, FCC! (Score:4, Interesting)
I _really_ wish the FCC would stop trying to control markets and technologies. I can understand the issues with interference, but exactly how is a monopoly in a new and developing industry a bad thing for consumers? Isn't the first company providing services in a certain space a monopoly? Does that mean we shouldn't allow a company to come up with a new radio technology unless there's another company that's also doing it?
Being a monopoly is not evil in and of itself, it's when that monopoly uses its power to keep others out of the market that it becomes a problem. How exactly could a merger of Sirius and XM Radio keep others out of the market? It's not like they can prevent competitors from launching satellites, or buying bandwidth on someone else's satellite. Consumers will always be free to purchase a new receiver if need be.
Once again... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get either one (Score:2)
Sat radio sattelite monopoly- hardly scary (Score:4, Interesting)
It's an optional service. No one, by any stretch of the imagination, needs to buy sattelite radio service.
If they piss off their customers, what are the customers gonna do?
STOP PAYING THEM.
That's all. Folks will listen to free broadcast radio or cd's instead. They won't starve, they won't have to dig up a precious resource themselves, and they won't have to kill someone in the streets to get their fix.
But hey, the FCC got to flex their muscle. They must be proud.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, hind sight is 20/20. We're all seriously blind about the future, aren't we?
Re: (Score:2)
monopolies != bad for consumers (Score:2)
Personally, I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry laying utility services in my street, this includes fibre & cables as well as gas and water pipes. What a nightmare that'd be. I don't want their RF pollution either. And being granted such a monopoly isn't necessarily good for companies as they have to play fair due to anti-competition regulations and provide good wholesale rates to their compet
HOWARD STERN and Satellite Radio (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like Stern - don't listen!
Actually, his show is far better on satellite then it ever was on terrestrial radio.
If you buy satellite radio (Sirius) I guarantee that you'll tune in to his channel one day, and something on his show will make you laugh. I used to be anti-Stern as well, but really the show is quite entertaining. All the challenging/serious computer work all day can make you want to listen to some fun trash talk. His show can be a de-stresser for me at times. Sometimes the show is dull / sometimes it is absolutely hilarious! Now that it's on satellite, give it a try. I think you can subscribe just to the on-line radio (Sirius has an internet feed). Try it for a month before you buy the hardware.
I go on long drives often (500km-1100km) - it's nice not having to hunt for radio stations while you're driving. Satellite has really changed the way I listen to music while driving. iPod - I have one of those. I'm a busy professional and don't have time to dink around downloading songs or bothering with DRM.
1 subscription* (Stern + Oprah) = Wishful thinking (Score:2)
Sirius != XM, merger would utterly suck (Score:5, Informative)
Sirius's music channels are generally programmed like "normal" radio stations, but without the commercials. They have DJs, Top XX countdowns, and playlists. Sirius generally appeals to people who hate the endless commercials or have musical tastes that vary from the local market norm (ie, someone into garage alternative or trance forced to live in some horrible small town or rural area where half the local stations are country, and the other half are religious), but are perfectly happy once they discover Sirius and get to enjoy the kind of radio that used to be available only to people in places like New York and Los Angeles.
XM's music channels are mostly jockless (no DJ) and have significantly deeper playlists. XM's subscribers call it "non-repetitive variety without intrusive, annoying chatter" and view it as a huge advantage over Sirius. On the other hand, most Sirius subscribers feel like they're listening to a CD player where someone put in a stack of CDs and hit the 'randomize' button when listening to XM. Different strokes for different folks.
The fact is, if XM took over Sirius, or Sirius took over XM, and the victor used the additional bandwidth to improve audio fidelity or add video services, and pretty much wiped out the other network's channels and format altogether, I *guarantee* at least half the losing service's customers would be gone within 3 months. Probably a third would be gone the moment their current month ended. Of course, many would dribble back in over the next few years, but it would unleash a lot of bad blood and bitterness.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an iPod to me.
think (Score:2)
Simple answer then. Don't. At least all the stock sat radio units I've seen suck compared to any of the aftermarket ones you install. Even XM's entry level Roady has a better display that your stock GM radio
Xbox vs PS vs Nintendo (Score:2)
let them merge (Score:2)
Radio??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. Wake me up when I can get streaming audio via WiMax in my car. What do you need a satellite for?
I have radio in my head (Score:2)
It makes for really cheap entertainment.
RS
Not surprised, its happened before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Trouble is, its short-term thinking that doesn't necessarily look at the long-term survival of either company.
Competition is good to keep existing monopolies from getting out of hand and abusing the customer base, but if, thanks to competition and high operating costs, *nobody* makes a profit, then the market itself will die. At worst. Otherwise, its whoever can keep the VC capital flowing until the other one dies, then the monopoly happens inevitably anyways.
Re:Monopolies are none of government's business (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not government's place to care.
Actually anti-trust is one of the few legitimate places for the government to care. Fixing the fundamentally broken corner-cases of capitalism is a fine use of government power.
All government needs to do is enforce contracts that any given set of individuals choose to make among themselves and arrest and punish those who initiate, attempt to initiate, or threaten to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.
Okay, maybe your idea of utopia is where all food manufacturers are bought by wal-mart and the contract you "choose" to sign with them is whatever the hell they want because your choice is to sign or starve to death, but for the rest of us sane people, I'd like to prevent that kind of thing even in its less extreme forms.
But thanks for once again reminding why despite feeling strongly affiliated with the principles of Libertarianism i could never, ever call myself one because of just how insane those principles are when taken to the extreme, and just how willing people are to take them to that extreme.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well they're my concern, and unlike your hypothetical corporate-run universe, in my world the government works on my behalf. So yes, desireable end results are the governments concern.
Desirable end results are not a corporations concern, as what is desireable from the peoples' standpoint usually means less-than-ideal profit for the corporation.
Then you are pure evil and have no moral right to exist, because you are willing to endorse the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to get in the middle of this issue, but rather to ask a side question...
You couldn't actually have limited liability corporations without the government getting in the mix could you?
Partnerships, sure. Corporations as persons?
all the best,
drew
Re:Monopolies are none of government's business (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at the concept of rights. Outside of society, there are no rights. I repeat: individuals have no rights. They don't need them. Think about it, if you were alone on the planet, would the concept of rights even occur to you? No. It is only because we operate in a society that my right to swing my fist conflicts with your right not to be hit in the face.
All rights are a compromise, and a contract. You agree to do, or not to do something in exchange for the agreement that others will act similarly. Without the protection of others, your rights would be meaningless. There is no ultimate authority from which to derive a set of absolute rights. There is no natural law which all people will interperate the same way, arriving at the same list of rights. Therefore, rights are what we as a society mutually agree to uphold in each other. No more, no less.
What rights a society chooses to enforce are up to the members of that society. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. But you have no right to force the rest of us to enact your prefered social system. You have basically stated that you feel you have the right to kill those who don't agree with your definition of what rights are important. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We have chosen to enact a government that regulates the free market. We believe it is the government's place to care. If you do not want to participate, you are free to leave. Where you go, or
Re: (Score:2)
It is just as immoral for an owning class to dictate terms to the non-owning class as it is for a government to do so. Your political and ecomomic theories just trade one kind of domination for another.
If you don't like the social system that has been enacted by the will of the majority, you are free to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to point this out, but you are aware of eminent domain [wikipedia.org] and the draft [wikipedia.org].
I don't like the idea of them either, but it is kind of pointless to say that our society and or government works.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's government's place to enforce the law, and the law says you can't buy your way into a monopoly.
Don't like the law? Who are you supporting for Congress, or where's your Constitutional amendment to explictly enshrine your interpretation?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
" I'm amazed that anybody would shell out even a nickel for radio "
A similar argument could be made for cable or satellite television. But apparently 70+ million US cable and satellite subscribers want more TV channels then their local market provides over the air. Sure, more people enjoy television, but watching TV while commuting to work is a little dangerous not to mention illegal in many areas.
Sirius has abou