I for one don't object at all. It's not a monopoly when there's competition from over-the-air radio, online music services, Internet radio, cellphones that play music, etc. It's just another source, and if they overprice themselves people will turn elsewhere.

The current model isn't sustainable. Why not have one healthy service than two that are going broke?

honestly, i could care less. that is, unless they do a single thing to screw up my fungus. marky ramone, i dig your drumming & the ramones are legendary, but if you beat out my main man, lou brutus, for control of the punk waves, you're gonna get some shock treatment courtesy of yours truly.

Come on. This is ridiculous. Monopoly? Ever heard of Ipod, digital/internet radio, CDs, regular radio, audio channels on cable? Isn't it a bit telling that the only group opposed to the merger is the NAB, which hired John Ashcroft to ruffle feathers and try to block this merger? Why should they care if they do not compete (and lose) against satellite radio? Were they up in arms when Clear Channel took over and ruined local radio throughout the country? Of course not, Clear Channel is their biggest donor, but of course they're not a monopoly. Neither is ExxonMobil, whose name alone screams illegal conglomerate (as well as offending the conscience). Even if it created a monopoly in satellite radio, since when is that a vital service and part of the public trust? Its not like they are used over the public airwaves, which are now owned by about 4 companies, and the FCC didn't seem to mind in spite of the fact that preserving the public airwaves for the public is kind of their core job. Is it really in the interest of consumers to force these two companies to canibalize each other on a race to Chapter 11? Or should we let them combine, compete against radio rather than each other, lower prices and improve content as Mel Karmazin promised before congress to do? I would have thought the values of fair competition and free speech would be shared by your site. Guess even business which give consumers exactly what they want and desire to do it even better are evil because they are corporations. Otherwise, whats the objection to improving an innovator?

Consumerist taking a political slant?

There are two sides to this really, and honestly both are valid. Lack of competition is a problem, but both will probably die without the merger - leaving us to good old crappy terrestrial radio.

Of course, you'll get the other folks who say "I have my cds/mp3s".. Whatever. There's something to be said for a nationwide live broadcast source; radios are now commodity priced.. I'd say do whatever works to save the media and let it compete against terrestrial.

I find it interesting that the NAB is lobbying so hard against this merger under the guise that this merger will end competition for Sirius and XM. The NAB claims that they aren't in competition with satellite radio. If that is true, why are they paying millions of dollars to oppose the merger? Out of the goodness of its heart? Why aren't the oil cartels lobbying? They aren't in competition with satellite radio either.

My mp3 player, my terrestrial radio and my satellite radio all vie for my attention when I am driving or waking up in the morning. If I want to get all the channels from both XM and Sirius, why is paying double (buying a separate subscription to both) better for me, the consumer?

Where do I go to tell "The Consumerist" how I feel about the bad new layout? :(

Yeah, the layout hurts. Maybe it works in IE, but I won't fire it up ;-)

Who cares about monopolies and competition in a non-essential service? It's not like cable internet where you're screwed without competition. It's just radio.

Merge so my Sirius stock goes up!

And I second DBEAHN about the new layout being bad.

When does commercial free actually mean commercial free? Let me get this straight I pay them for commercial free radio yet they run commercials. Who the fuck cares about this merger. They are going out of business soon enough.

Clearly Doc Benway doesn't have Sirius. They offer 100% commercial free music. Period. They offer talk shows that have a few commercials. They never, EVER advertised that O&A or Stern would be commercial free.

How is the Sirius-XM merger ok, but the Whole Foods-Wild Oats not?

XM has some music stations with commercials, but that is because they lost a lawsuit with ClearChannel which forced them to do so. ClearChannel controls those stations, and again proves that ClearChannel sucks ass.

The government is so concerned with this merger, but they let mergers, which have far reaching effects on consumers, go through with zero resistance.

@mac-phisto: I'm pretty sure you meant that you couldn't care less.

@suburbancowboy: What music channels on XM have commercials, out of curiosity? I pretty much only listen to Fungus and Lucy, so I've yet to hear one.

@pestie: Think about the intonation pattern of "I could CARE less" and compare that to "I COULDN'T care less." One is ironic and the other is literal. I'll let you guess which is which.

As, suprasegmental stress patterns and the many magical wonders therein.

@pestie: you're just asking for a curby. ;)