Sirius CEO Karmazin Sees XM Merger Closing by End of Year

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on October 30, 2007 - 8:29am.

Washington - The CEO of Sirius Satellite Radio (NSDQ: SIRI) on Tuesday re-asserted his belief that his company will receive regulatory approval by year's end to complete its $4.7 billion merger with XM Satellite Radio (NSDQ: XMSR) , Barron's Online reported.

"We remain confident that the regulatory authorities will carefully weigh the merits of the transaction and conclude that this merger is not anti-competitive and is in the public interest," said Mel Karmazin during a conference call with analysts.

"We continue to expect that we will close the merger by the end of the year."

The deal faces stiff opposition from lawmakers and regulators, who must be convinced that the combined company will serve in the best interests of consumers. XM will hold a special meeting of it shareholders on Nov. 13 in D.C. to vote on the merger.

Related Links:
http://tinyurl.com/2tlmzd (Barron's)

Published in DMW Daily, October 30, 2007

Previous story: Report: Google Phones by Mid-2008
Next story: MySpace Taps Zazzle for Band Merchandise Retail Service

Email this page

Comments

XM+Sirius=Monopoly

Submitted by Chinook (not verified) on October 31, 2007 - 1:40am.

I do some work with NAB, and I think this proposed merger would create a pure monopoly. There are only two entities that provide a nationwide service of satellite radio, in which listeners have to pay to subscribe. That is XM and Sirius. Why would consumers what one company to have a monopoly on that service? When have monopolies ever been good for consumers?

That would only be true if

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on October 31, 2007 - 9:58am.

That would only be true if Satellite Radio existed in a vacuum. It does not. Sat Radio does not solely compete against other Sat Radio companies. It competes with ipods, regular radio (the hundreds of channels owned by members of the NAB), and anything else you can plug into your car. If regular radio was not competing with Sat. then why is the NAB in such a huff and appearing at every congressional hearing? If its different, then the NAB's testimony is pointless. "Why would consumers what one company to have a monopoly on that service?" I have sirius. I love Howard Stern. I also like baseball. Currently, to have BOTH Howard and baseball, I'd have to get TWO pieces of equipment, have them BOTH take up room in my car, and pay TWO separate subscriptions. If the merger goes down, then that is all reduced. Sat. radio is not something you must have. If the prices rise to extremely high areas, they would lose subscribers. Both companies are losing money. Money wasted on combating each other could be used in more constructive ways.