I am both a satellite radio listener (consumer) and a major shareholder in Sirius (SIRI). As an investor, I have studied the technology and closely followed Sirius’ operations and those of XM Satellite Radio (XMSR) - its only competitor. I have also read its filings made over the years with the SEC and I not only have closely followed the merger proposal and the application Sirius and XM made for its approval to the FCC, but have actively participated in that proceeding.

Back in March 2007, approximately, I filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC asking it to determine whether the two companies had complied with the condition the FCC imposed on both XM and Sirius when it granted each their licenses in 1997. That condition, which many consumers and individual shareholders may still be unaware of, required the companies provide an interoperable radio that would permit consumers to receive either XM or Sirius service from a single satellite radio receiver.

I filed the Petition for Declaratory Ruling at the FCC because, though ten years has passed since the FCC imposed the condition and long after XM and Sirius became operational, consumers still do not have access to an interoperable radio capable of receiving services from both companies. Moreover, shareholders have been kept in the dark about the impact that providing an interoperable radio would have on both companies' financial performance.

For consumers, one example of the adverse consequences of not having interoperable radios occurred on January 1, 2007 - to NASCAR fans. These listeners purchased XM radios because it provided NASCAR coverage. But when Sirius acquired the rights to broadcast NASCAR events, these listeners were forced to purchase new equipment, switch their service contracts to Sirius and lose their other XM services. Had the companies complied with the FCC’s interoperable radio requirement, these satellite radio consumers would not have been forced to buy new equipment or choose other programming offers in order to retain NASCAR programming.

Both XM and Sirius were well aware of the potential that interoperability provided not only for consumers, but also for the fortunes of both companies. In settling patent litigation between the two companies in 2000, a press release on February 16, 2000 stated:

Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio today announced an agreement to develop a unified standard for satellite radios. The standard is expected to accelerate growth of the satellite radio category by enabling consumers to purchase one radio capable of receiving both companies' broadcasts. XM Radio and Sirius will jointly fund development of the technology and work together to proliferate the new standard by creating a service mark for satellite radio. As part of the agreement, each company will contribute its intellectual property to the initiative and have agreed to resolve any pending patent litigation.

The companies both further extolled the unified standard as good news not only for consumers but also for shareholders because they said it would increase consumer use of satellite radio services, which logically was expected to have a positive effect on both companies’ revenues. The auto buying public would find particular benefits because the companies announced that no future OEM deals (auto manufacturers) would be exclusive. This would have meant that each vehicle manufactured with an interoperable radio would allow the auto buying public the ability to chose either XM or Sirius or both depending on their personal content preferences.

None of this happened, however. Why? Why are consumers who have spent tens of millions of dollars on non-interoperable radios now faced with the future prospect of having to spend the same amount or more once XM and Sirius merge? How has the lack of interoperable radios all these years affected each company’s financials and falling share prices?

Even with the merger, it will be one or more years before the combined programming of XM and Sirius can be received. In the interim, consumers have stopped or slowed their buying of satellite radio services because of the surrounding uncertainty about when and at what price a receiver will be available that can receive the programming of the merged entity. This confusion has only exacerbated an already serious decline in both companies' valuations and their shareholders are the ones being victimized.

As a consumer and shareholder, I have been asking for answers about what happened to the FCC’s interoperability mandate and the companies’ failure to comply with it. Not only have Sirius’ and XM’s executives refused to answer, the FCC has refused to address the issue of the companies’ failure to comply with its own rule or how its refusal to do so comports with its statutory obligations to protect the public’s interests in communications services.

The companies do offer a defense. They say they only had to “design and develop” the interoperable radios… not make them available to consumers. Think of it as a government-forced and shareholder-funded science project that the companies allocated up to 25 million dollars to complete. When specifically asked about this defense, the FCC says it can’t talk about it because the matter is pending before the Commission. With all due respect, it’s been “pending” for ten years. This seems all too convenient. It permits the FCC to refuse to explain why it hasn’t enforced its own rule by its continuous failure to enforce its own rule.

It’s been nearly two years since I began to ask questions about the lack of interoperable radios. The companies have defended themselves by silence, by inconsistent, ambiguous, and self-serving statements and even in testimony before Congressional committees. Recently, Senator Brownback obtained documents that have caused him to make inquiry about the truthfulness of the testimony given by Sirius’ CEO during some of his appearances before Congressional committees.

The reason this merger has been delayed, at a grave expense to shareholders, is because the companies are not in compliance with their licensing requirements and the FCC does not have the interest to address whether or not the companies have failed to properly serve satellite consumers’ interests. But the failure of the FCC regulatory oversight is not the only problem. The Department of Justice granted its approval of this merger precisely because of the companies’ failure to comply with the FCC’s interoperability mandate. The DOJ’s rationalized that because there are no interoperable radios, the companies still use radios capable of receiving only their respective services and hence do not compete with each other. In other words, the companies having prevented competition by violating the FCC regulatory requirement, there is no competition that could be harmed by the merger and hence no antitrust concerns.

Consumers and shareholders have been and are being duped. Shareholders have lost billions of dollars in investment. Consumers have spent hundreds of millions on unnecessary hardware. Why? Because at some point, these companies converted their business plans into a concerted effort to consolidate all of the satellite radio spectrum into one company. To do this, they flaunted the interoperable mandate, negotiated the merger, created a audio entertainment market out of whole cloth and engaged a host of Washington insiders to lobby their plan before the FCC, DOJ and Congress. During the process they kept their exclusive OEM deals, spent outrageous amounts of money for exclusive content, scuttled true competition, saddled consumers with soon to be obsolete equipment and forced consumers to invest in new equipment or forego satellite radio service.

Consumers and shareholders have been cheated and the government appears to be part of the problem or at least unwilling to do anything about it. Congress should investigate. Enough is known to question the candor and credibility of the highest-ranking executives in both companies, but in particular in Sirius. A lack of candor and credibility goes to the heart of the qualifications to be a FCC licensee. Under these circumstances, for the FCC to allow XM and Sirius to consolidate their licenses when it is not clear they are fit to hold such licenses is to favor the private interests of a few executives over the public interest and a failure of the FCC to perform the duties Congress gave it.

Disclosure: Author holds a long position in SIRI

Michael Hartleib

About this author:
Become a Contributor Submit an Article

This article has 83 comments:

  •  
    Jul 11 03:14 AM
    You hold a long position in a company which you think is violating the terms of its operating license, duping and cheating investors and consumers, and should be investigated by Congress??

    You're either a masochist, the world's worst investor, or an NAB mole.

    Whatever you are, I question your motives and your candor, sir.
  •  
    Jul 11 03:27 AM
    i do not understand you. you say that you are a major shareholder of cirius but you want it damned.

    i am thinking of another person who enjoys all the blessings that America provides him but wants GOD to damn America.
  •  
    Jul 11 03:29 AM
    He has one share, lol. Ya, I think I see his point though. If this has all been orchestrated to become one company from the beginning, and they new that, then yes, customer up to this point have been hurt by this decision. They seemed to have no choice given the mandate for two companies. They will soon be one, and it will be a non issue. I guarantee it will not take them 2 years to get a device that plays both spectrums, because now they will just combine, and use one or the other, plus all new equipment will support both anyway. Brilliant. Sirius is well run afterall. I am long Sirius, and XM.
  •  
    Jul 11 03:34 AM
    I will use the cable tv industry as an analogy to this. I have one cable box which services only one tv set in my house. While that cable box does get every channel (I don't need a separate box for MLB and NFL), I do need an additional box for each tv set in my home, and that is an additional $15 per box (includes HDTV and DVR). That is a ripoff! The competiton for the cable tv company is not another cable company, its Direct TV or regular free tv.
    So to compare to Sat Radio, it seems that if Siri and XM want to merge, they should have one box capable of receiving both Sirius and XM signals. Hopefully, they have been working on that for the past year. If they have not, shame on them, I now see the need for delay until they do have the proper radio in place for the consumer. I wonder if there is any news on this. Otherwise, this deal is a no-brainer. Sat Radio will have the same competition as Sat TV, which is other forms of broadcast, not companies within its own Sat Radio industry.
  •  
    Jul 11 03:37 AM
    Wow! Dude you need a reality check...So are you for the merger or not? You are a long shareholder but you trash the company you invested in...? You confused us all...
  •  
    Jul 11 03:51 AM
    You claim to be a "major shareholder in Sirius," yet you take a position that is adverse to not only your purported shareholder interest, but that of all other Sirius shareholders.
    Sir, I ask you to disclose the number of shares that you own in Sirius...
    "major shareholder," give us the number of shares, and let us be the judge.
    I, too, am a Sirius subscriber, and am a small shareholder in XMSR (5,000 shares), and at times have owned SIRI shares (but because of the spread converted them to XMSR).
    My 5,000 XMSR shares will upon merger become 23,000 shares of SIRI, (5,000 XM shares x 4.6 ratio = 23,000 shares of SIRI), yet I don't consider myself a major shareholder...and, I doubt that you hold anywhere near that number of shares, otherwise, why would you take such a harmful position against a company you claim to be a major shareholder.
    Sir, once again, I ask you to disclose the number of shares that you own....
  •  
    Jul 11 04:23 AM
    Did some internet research, and this is what I found:
    >>>Michael Hartleib is a member of the class in that he has been a shareholder of Sirius since October of 2003. Mr. Hartleib currently owns 151,000 shares of Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. (See Copy of Mr. Hartleib’s Ameritrade Account Statement attached herein as Exhibit “A”).<<<
    siriusbuzz.com/forum/s...
    whether or not he still owns 151,000 shares or not, I don't know, but I can tell you that now I am even more confused by him.
    I can't tell whether he is for or against the merger....some prior writings appear he is for it, but the above just does not make any sense to me. He also appears to be the person that had some dispute with the Sirius vote on the merger claiming that they did not disclose the actual vote count.
  •  
    Jul 11 04:54 AM
    Real Sirius xm investor. If your figures on Mr hatleib are correct, that makes him only a minor stock holder. Without his naming his number of holdings, if it is less than three per cent I don't consider him to be a 'major' stock holder. I own fifty two thousand nine hundred shares of SIRI and am only a 'small investor'. Anyone holding just five thousand shares of SIRI is a 'penny ante' investor.
  •  
    Jul 11 06:13 AM
    I find it preposterous that others imply that you are crazy because you want the truth outed about the stock you own. I have been long this stock for too long and like others, have agonized over the ineptitude of the FCC and governmental interference over the merger. More hours, filings, and disclosures have been made about the M/A than the combination of Exxon Mobil.
    However to suggest that you are crazy or not long at all on the SIRI stock is typical of the narrow thinking of this message board.
    As an investor, I expect risk but not complicity by a CEO to cover up information that would certainly have affected my decision on whether or not to purchase SIRI. One reason the market is depressed is total lack of confidence in the operations of the markets and those who should be governing/policing on behalf of investors. It seems that once again the CEOs and goverment-watchdogs have failed the consumer who is ultimately the loser, all-a-round. I thank you for the first full explanation about why this stock and merger have been so disappointing.
    Unfortunately there will be no justice for those who lose their investment even if fraud has occurred; one can't get compensation from a dead company nor sue the government, Too bad the latter is not possible, too bad.
  •  
    Jul 11 07:03 AM
    " these are only his remaing shares "

    hes clearly for the merger as he understands it must happen for satellite services to survive with the current ownership and managment in place.

    you need to place things in context,hes been on board with satellite from prior to the time of the first refi.

    im sorry to say hes telling the truth here..SIRIUS did have a material change to its business plan that effected the interoperable/dual device deployment.they clearly stated well into calendar year 2006 the device would be on market by the eoy 06.

    or they were less then candid or honest in the past?

    the fcc mandate said deploy for consumer use, "one device that would enable choice" at the user/listener level. which would benefit both company's. and most likely the service with the better content offering would reap the benefit of subcriber growth..

    this was the battle sirius claimed they would fight to the end they even stated many times the market would have a large enough base to support two services going forward.

    one thing is certain michael's not one of the normal sheep.

    and now sirus claims there was never a mandate by the fcc and if the merger does not take place forget about the dual/interoperable devices!

    Kevin martin and team need to present all the real facts,failures and related information along with the timeline to the public for airing prior to moving on this merger issue..

  •  
    Jul 11 07:06 AM
    Your alllegations have been addressed...You make the FALSE claim sirius and xm have ignored the situation, then go on to explain how they have responded. The truth Mr. Hartlieb, is that you don't like the answer that was given. Too bad. Get over yourself . This is nothing more than C3SR's position, and the NAB's tactics. Sirius investors are well schooled in these matters..You are not fooling anyone.
  •  
    Jul 11 07:42 AM
    maybe they read mr hartliebs claims and discovered the truth based on the fcc order you know many radio people/broadcasters read these blogs and message boards.

    the truth is you dont know, as he and i dont....but we want the facts

    also hes not the only person that began asking the fcc for information and the then current status of the dual device issue prior to any merger news starting in 2006.

    even the fcc noted the pending action when granting both xm and sirius the required douments to launch and operate xm3/4 and fm5
    so the claim by sirius that the fcc never gave them a answer on the mandate is clearly false the fcc responded clearly.and requested a specific timeline for deployment..in 2005

    even the fcc used the term arual when it defined the growing competing landscape for sdars in the license grant they have no choice but to ok the merger or be taken to task in the courts by sirius.as the ceo stated!

    new investors better be careful as they could get burnt bigtime if action is taken.and i suspect they the fcc wiil take action on more then a single issue and it most likely wont be a simple slap on the wrist.

    for somebody that just noticed score-media payperview yesterday? what does that say for being well schooled. nothing when placed in the correct context.

    maybe others are using information that was based on hartliebs footwork you need to consider all angles here for your investment.

    sheep are free rage food for the wolf pack.

    a honest good investor looks at all points and issue for effect on pps
  •  
    Jul 11 07:56 AM
    Satellite radio is just a dead end technology. Podcasting has taken 90% of SIRI/XMSR's growth potential. All this merger theatrics is just beside the point. Someone needs to help the FCC to understand that the landscape has changed to the point where a merger between these two companies is nowhere close to being the problem that was envisioned 10 or 15 years ago.
  •  
    Jul 11 08:05 AM
    Sounds like someone wants to short sell. Its amazing how the sheep react to information, skewed to to the broadcasters benefit. There are a lot of people making money at our expense. Institutuional investors, analysts, politicians etc.. Where is the SEC?????
  •  
    Jul 11 08:07 AM
    Didn't have time to read your whole rant. XM and Sirius did develope a interoperable radio, but it was never defined that they had to make and sell them, they only had to develope it. Which they did.

  •  
    Jul 11 08:43 AM
    Uh......why would they need to make radios that accept both signals...when they could have all programming running from all satellites....meaning, your Sirius Radio would now get MLB and your XM Radio would now get Howard. Why would we have to wait for interoperable? They just consolidate content. Duh.
  •  
    Jul 11 08:58 AM
    the fcc required they compete for content and subscribers which could exculde the sharing of content as they were to be seperate services. that should have been driven by the available content offering..

    this is why they had a battle over content and paid to much in some cases

    but, the fcc was then nice enough to say go ahead and offer a common shared device to the public consumers.as a joint effort which could have allowed both services to reap many of the rewards being claimed as a merger specific benefits.

    and should have lead to faster consumer uptake rates do to manufactures and oems being able to offer either service in a single device..

    the shareholders and public have been screwed on this issue.
  •  
    Jul 11 09:05 AM
    I have a 60 inch Mitsubishi rear projection TV which I bought in the late 90's. It cost over $3000 and is now obsolete. It now doesn't work and they say they can't get parts for it. Technology moves on and I accept that. It's time to replace it with a new LCD or Plasma TV.

    The combined company will have interoperable units on the market. It would not make any sense not to. They would probably like to have them on the shelves for Christmas if the FCC would get off their duffs and approve the merger. On second thought, they could do it on their duffs.
  •  
    Jul 11 09:07 AM
    this makes no sense to me...does anyone else get it? I love my radio...I own 10k shares of siri...I am not worried... this seems like quite the ego piece...look at me look at me....
  •  
    Jul 11 09:11 AM
    in addition...most of the radios I purchased were buy one get one or at a great discount anyway...I have had them for 4 years now...it is time to upgrade anyway...
  •  
    Jul 11 09:13 AM
    All of the above will happen once FCC gives the go ahead, the rest discussed here its all BS, interoperability mandate will come with merger approval soon, I'm sure devises are in the works, think of iPod
  •  
    Jul 11 09:15 AM
    Your initial premise of an interoperable radio is wrong NAB-boy. They were required to develop an interoperable radio, which they did. They were not required to manufacture it, and never received direction from the FCC to do so. Consumers want this merger, so you are 100% wrong "Mr. Hartleib".
  •  
    Jul 11 09:18 AM
    I was told by a friend that has been working for Best-Buy for years. He says they already have the interoperable radio. They have now for 6 months. They are just waiting for FCC blessing, then they will hit the shelves.
  •  
    Jul 11 09:36 AM
    go search orbitcast by keyword interoperable you should find a article from june 16th or 17th of 2006 where it states the devices have a timeline for delivery to the retail market by eoy 06.

    if you know ryan he would not let a blog post in error "uncorrected"... which indicates to me it was based on fact then.

    egis i like your work but hartleib is correct on this issue
  •  
    Jul 11 09:39 AM
    Lets say 3 years ago I bought a car with an interoperable radio. I had the choice between Sirius and XM. Which company had to subsidize that radio? If Sirius subsidized it and I chose XM, that would suck for Sirius.
  •  
    Jul 11 10:18 AM
    they would have spilt all related cost burdens on the device with two sdars companys..it would still lower their total cost
  •  
    Jul 11 10:43 AM
    MAJOR DIRECT HOLDERS (FORMS 3 & 4)

    Holder Shares Reported
    CLAYTON JOSEPH P 3,525,785 25-Mar-08
    DONNELLY PATRICK L 1,755,103 16-May-08
    GREENSTEIN SCOTT ANDREW 1,473,307 19-Feb-08
    MEYER JAMES E 1,238,479 19-Feb-08
    FREAR DAVID J 830,790 14-Mar-08


    Mr. Hartleib place in line:
    Michael Hartleib 151,000 24-Mar-08

    151000 / 830,790 = 18% of what the lowest Major Direct holder has
    151,000 * $2 = $302,000 invested

    Considering he is not Paid by Sirius, this is a considerable investment. Although I too would deem it at a lower invetor category, "siginificat investor".


  •  
    Jul 11 10:45 AM
    CORRECTION
    :
    :
    :
    Considering he is not Paid by Sirius, this is a considerable investment. Although I too would deem it at a lower investor category, "significant investor".
  •  
    Jul 11 10:49 AM
    I did not have to get a new receiver to listen to NASCAR - I have had the same receivers in my home, car, and office for more than 3 years. What am I missing? If everything that Hartleib says is correct then wouldn't I have to purchase a new receiver?

    I am so confused by this information...it makes sense, but then again it does not - are only XM subs getting screwed in the deal?
  •  
    Jul 11 11:06 AM
    It may be call semantics, but, switchable interoperability is the real issue. The author, it appears wants a unit that has the capacity for both XM & SIRI capacity at the same time. Firmware that is downloaded to the unit does allow interoperability today! Why should a very few individuals who can afford the price of both services drive the way the receivers work? Why should the majority of the single provider subscribers pay for the few subscribers that can afford dual subscriptions.
  •  
    Jul 11 11:10 AM
    now you understand the fcc directed just that effort, for the public and consumers a single device for use with both services..
  •  
    Jul 11 11:14 AM
    this is from june 2006 from interoperable techno. site

    www.selectsatelliterad...

  •  
    Jul 11 11:15 AM
    Michael H., Well I for one would just like to thank you, for the work you did in stoping the law suit, and getting it tossed out of court. So while I have not read the article you put up here yet, and may disagree with that. I do know you had done alot to stop the other law suit.
  •  
    Jul 11 11:18 AM
    About Us
    Interoperable Technologies, LLC is satellite radio’s joint venture. Formed in 2003 as an independent Delaware corporation, our parents are SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc. and XM Satellite Radio Inc., who agreed to develop a unified standard for a common receiver platform. The common or dual-mode receiver platform enables consumers to purchase one radio capable of receiving the services of both XM and SIRIUS. The related technology is jointly developed and funded by our parent companies, who share in its ownership. Indeed, in 2005, we substantially completed the design of a radio capable of receiving both services.

    It is acknowledged that SIRIUS, XM and their manufacturing partners already produce receivers that permit end users to access all Satellite Digital Audio Radio systems in compliance with FCC interoperability obligations. Furthermore, there currently is no assurance that the XM or Sirius manufacturing partners will build dual-mode radios, that they will be cost competitive, or that any significant market for dual-mode radios will develop. Even so, Interoperable Technologies stands to develop the opportunity for dual-mode satellite radio technology.

    Having all XM and SIRIUS programming available together in a single radio can be quite the compelling experience. Or, for those consumers unsure of which of two great services to commit to, offering a choice between SIRIUS or XM - independent of purchased hardware may lower entry barriers and further accelerate the adoption of this exciting new media. To these ends, Interoperable Technologies continues to develop dual-mode receiver technology able to receive either or both satellite radio services.
  •  
    Jul 11 11:57 AM
    Desperation has such a wonderful odor about it.
  •  
    Jul 11 12:19 PM
    Mel Karmazin (CEO of Sirius) has stated he currently has an dual-band radio sitting on his desk. The FCC mandated that both companies subsidize a dual-band radio, but forgot to word it in such a way as to force them to have it available to sell to consumers by a specific timeline.

    I'm sure XM/SIRI held off simply because each company didn't want to subsidize a radio that would become a subscriber to the competitor's service. This is borderline shady by XM/SIRI if you ask me, but the FCC is mostly to blame due to the poor wording of the mandate.

    The FCC (and NAB) are going to drag this on as long as possible, simply because they may have to backpeddle to "fix" their mistake as not to make them look like fools (too late in my book). The FCC also needs to decide whether or not to make good on their wording disallowing one company from owning both spectrum licenses. The FCC has their work cut out for them. Do they go against their word on the licensing, or do they fix the problem of making dual-band receivers available for sale?

    All of this fluff has hit the stock hard, and made consumers wary of buying or investing in satellite.

    Question his stock investment or interest in satellite all you want, but Michael has a point, and it's valid.

  •  
    Jul 11 12:47 PM
    ......and his point is?
  •  
    Jul 11 01:23 PM
    This is clearly a propaganda article composed by a paid lacky that was was most likely given the position in the stock to make him look unbiased. The networks appear to have more than the FCC in their pocket
  •  
    Jul 11 03:17 PM
    Excellent article. Allow this merger and the public gets the short end of the deal. Mel won't have to compete for exclusive rights to sports programming. He can charge whatever the traffic will bear, and pay as little as he wants for his sports product. Expect the new radio to have perhaps a dozen “free” channels, loaded with commercials. That will create demand for the radios and allow him to end the subsidy. That should be good for revenues but there are other problems / opportunities. If Mel moves too fast the next administration might force him to divest himself of one of the systems. To prevent this from happening, the current satellites will need to be scrapped and replaced with a single system. They are getting pretty long in the tooth anyway and the next generation of satellites should be able to handle more channels than the combined capacity of the current systems. Full motion video on a small number of channels should also be within the capability of the latest technology. Mel could compete with DBS for sports programming with a much smaller “dish”. Naturally the shareholders will have to wait a while for any real dividends because the capital investment will be significant. It will be worth the wait because any new competitor will need to get the FCC to find new frequencies. Then another set of satellites will need to be launched. Naturally the dual channel radio won’t receive the third frequency so the FCC will need to mandate another radio standard. Any new competitor will have a really wide moat to cross. Mel will probably feel concerned for the welfare of the departing members of the FCC, but that shouldn’t be expensive, considering the overall benefit he will derive from a favorable decision. He has the Billy Tauzin history to provide a guideline for his budget.
    If the FCC should deny the merger and set a deadline for the exclusive sale of the combined radio then the following might happen.
    Both companies will probably provide free programming and end any subsidy to manufacturers. Both will offer a la carte service that all new customers can access. Since their potential audience will double their subscriptions should increase. The new radios will become a standard offering in all cars since the incremental cost of adding the service will be the cost of the external antenna, and that is already combined with On-Star in that product offering. Expect to see On-Star type service in all cars in the future, since that has to be a profitable business.
    That’s probably the best scenario for all concerned, even the stockholders. IPods can’t do sports and the Internet still need a “cell phone like” data channel which won’t be free. Satellite radio is here to stay, no matter what the FCC decides. Stay tuned.
  •  
    Jul 11 03:43 PM
    Please, Sirius stock isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I could own 2 million shares with a finskie from my grandmother.

    Neither XM not Sirius's satellites or hardware are at all compatible, they were specifically designed that way. Should the merger ever go through, your shiny new Stiletto 2 or Inno will not work at all with the other service and you will have to either cancel or buy a new, more expensive, dual band radio. 2 Companies that flaunted the law, spent lavishly and now want a government bailout. I love my XM but tough luck.
  •  
    Jul 11 06:28 PM
    WOW! now i'm confused!
  •  
    Jul 11 06:30 PM
    The NAB is using this article against Sirius. Thhe NAB is leaving out the commentary by people who disagree with Michael Hartlieb.

    fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod...
  •  
    Jul 11 06:32 PM
    siriusbuzz.com/forum/s...
  •  
    Jul 11 06:33 PM
    siriusnewsrumors.blogs...
  •  
    Jul 11 06:33 PM
    messages.finance.yahoo...
  •  
    Jul 11 06:45 PM
    so i was correct they are using his information he has no relationship with the nab or radio....why not post the one about both sirius and xmsr being in meeting with the heads of the enforcement department yesterday.

    why where they meeting because hartlieb is correct on many of his points...
  •  
    Jul 11 06:46 PM
    @ Pfreak: Did you know that Sirius/XM will stream certain content from ones network to another, and vice versa? I didn't think so, or at least you failed to acknowledge it. You seem like someone who follows this stock a lot and I've seen you post elsewhere, so why did you leave out that the other service can be piped into the other??? I understand that a sirius receiver cannot pick up a signal off of xm, but that doesn't mean that it sirius can't beam XM's content to a radio, they can. Both the satellites and the internet can allow this to happen.

  •  
    Jul 11 06:47 PM
    sure hope you sheep, have lots of lambs in the barn, this wont be a cake walk going forward...
  •  
    Jul 11 06:49 PM
    Mr. Hartlieb or the NAB, may be guilty of our nations securities laws. It is insider trading because he knows about the likely vote and outcome of the merger--more than we do. He has a direct pipeline to an NAB attorney. At the very least, this is clearly a contrived action by the NAB. He has insider knowelege of what is going on with the merger. This is clearly a desperate act by the legal team of the NAB to swing one of the votes to their favor.


    On Jul 11 06:30 PM crfceo wrote:

    > The NAB is using this article against Sirius. Thhe NAB is leaving
    > out the commentary by people who disagree with Michael Hartlieb.
    >
    >
    > fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod...
  •  
    Jul 11 06:52 PM
    "Neither XM not Sirius's satellites or hardware are at all compatible, they were specifically designed that way."

    yep your sort of correct and thats exactly why the fcc mandated a dual device for the consumer to use and chose the service they wanted based on content.
  •  
    Jul 11 07:21 PM
    Visteon has had an interoperable radio on the market for the last 5 years...call and ask them...

    Satellite Radio System


    Visteon's Satellite Radio System features an innovative head unit that can accept the decoded signals of either XM or SIRIUS satellite radio transmissions – thus avoiding the need for two different head units for the two services. Given two subscription options, consumers can identify their preference of satellite radio service providers at the point of purchase. Installation of the required components can be done at the factory or in the dealership.

    This system is designed for integration with current automotive audio systems, utilizing existing space for the head unit and one package location for the satellite receiver module. In addition, Visteon is well positioned to provide the consumers with the next generation satellite data service features like dynamic traffic to integrate with navigation or audio systems.

    Benefits

    Provides a single-design head unit making it easier and more cost-effective for vehicle manufacturers to allow consumers to choose their satellite radio service provider without increased radio complexity.
    Requires a small, external antenna to receive satellite and ground-based network digital signals.
    Provides the ability to display the channel name and number, artist and song title through its enhanced radio display capability.
    Uses current radio pre-sets to store your favorite channels for quick access and requires no additional displays with the enhanced Human Machine Interface (HMI) capabilities.

    www.visteon.com/produc...
  •  
    Jul 11 07:28 PM
    Sirius & XM are phenomenal products together there ability to transform the radio market into the new age of products will do the consumer more good ,The NAB should stop the strong arm tatics and the lying to the public ,and FCC should approve the merger,far more consumers support it than are against it
  •  
    Jul 11 07:36 PM
    After reading this article I find it hard to believe that it was written by a Sirius stockholder. Both XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio's share value are hanging on by a thread. That thread is a FCC approval of this merger. Without it XM will be forced into chapter 11 bankruptcy within weeks and Sirius will not be far behind. Providing interoperable radios would NOT have changed this outcome. In fact it would most likely have lead to price war which would have resulted in bankruptcy even sooner.

    The premis of this article is "consumer fairness". Both of these companies have provided a great service to consumers for the low price of around 13 dollars per month. To date is has cost nearly double that amount to provide the service. I don't know how much more "fair" two companies could be.
  •  
    Jul 11 07:40 PM
    crfceo

    thats a first generation interoperable device which requires a change out of some hardware in the form of a trunk mounted box most likely..and was planned as a transitional device prior to dual devices..

    and this is based on what both sirius and xmsr told the fcc.

  •  
    Jul 11 07:50 PM
    mikinks2, While I do not agree with what Michael is saying here, he is a SIRI shareholder. He has a larger position then I do, unless he sold since the last time I have read his stuff. What most do not know is that he is trying to protect SIRI because He believes SIRI over paid for XMSR, if this interoperable radio did exist (something I dont think does). While he would like the merger to go through he does not think SIRI should pay 4.6 shares for it, he thinks it should be a much smaller amount.
  •  
    Jul 11 07:56 PM
    Don't bite the hand that will hopefully be feeding you!!!
  •  
    Jul 11 07:58 PM
    Really now, do you people honestly believe that the consumer is going to get the "short end of the stick" should the merger go through? They will just cancel their subs and the companies will both go away! No way on earth are current subscribers going to get a raw deal. I will say, that all this stalling from the FCC due to the NAB and paid politicians and minority groups is awesome advertising for satellite radio. People who didn't even know about satellite radio are hearing about it the longer it drags on and with all the minority groups interest in securing channels for their own listeners just shows how huge satrad is going to be when the deal is finally approved. If (clear channel, aka the NAB) is so against the merger then why don't they just take large shareholder positions in either xm or sirius and then they can join the future of broadcast radio and make tons of cash along the way? Keep fighting it and tell the most powerful consumers in the world that they can't have something and then watch them fight tooth and nail to get it. The merger will go through because "conditions" are being met and anyone with a brain would know that as long as siri/xmsr are agreeing to reasonable conditions then the merger will pass. Also, if you'll notice, clear channel going private has not been completed yet and I'm sure it is being dragged out to buy the nab as much time to delay the merger as possible. Remember, clear channel has had the monopoly on broadcast radio advertising for decades and they are not going to go down without a fight. They are going to lose billions more dollars a year when the merger is complete. Go siri! go xm!
  •  
    Jul 11 08:01 PM
    truth as you see it...you are obviously a mole also...probably the author. The problem as Hartlieb states it citing the nascar switch, was a need to change hardware. If the visteon radio was installed by manufacturers, a simple changeover would have been the only thing neccessary. No major hardware expense. He goes on to say he would not have had to switch services. That is not true. He would have had to switch services and pay a new activation fee, even if he did have an iinteroperable radio. The fact is there was a shortage of chips as it were, relative to the demand. They have done everything possible to develop the technology. It was cost prohibitive. Sirius has filed continuosly with the SEC regarding its progress in regard to interoperable radio development. Mr. Hartlieb is upset because it hasn't been done in his personal time frame....that's too bad. If the CONSUMER wanted an interoperable radio, the manufacturers would have moved mountains to produce them. Their market research indicated that it was a money losing proposition.

    If I were to develop an interoperable radio, and no one wanted it....the chances are high that I would always have an interoperable radio...worth nothing. Visteon has in fact produced one. It only requires a different tuner. NO ONE WANTS IT!

  •  
    Jul 11 08:20 PM
    How much did the NAB pay you for your article?
  •  
    Jul 11 08:33 PM
    They bought his shares--no question about it. Its the NAB that needs to be investigated. Also--the NAB would be complaining if the radios WERE completed and ready to go. They would be saying that it was illegal because they were only supposed to be prepared to build them--not build them. Its baloney. The reality is that Sirius has said that they will have them and that they need to have them or else people wont buy the service. DUH!!!
  •  
    Jul 11 08:37 PM
    This guy is a WINGNUT. He has no lawyer!!! I deal with these kind of pro se guys all the time. And this is who the NAB is going with?HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ill bet he is hanging around the FCC in his bathrobe!! This is sad!!
  •  
    Jul 11 08:43 PM
    patheticlly obvious that this was a NAB plant when it was posted this morning...
    proof is how fast the NAB submitted a copy of this letter to the FCC...
  •  
    Jul 11 08:48 PM
    Why did Seeking Alpha allow this guy to publish this (or any other) article on Seeking Alpha is beyond me....
    ....THIS ARTICLE IS A BLACK-EYE TO SEEKING ALPHA.
    Seeking Alpha's credibility has gone down the toilet!!!
    And, this is not just because I disagree with this guy...I disagree with many Seeking Alpha contributors; however, this is the first contributor that I have seen that I can emphatically say should not have been published. SEEKING ALPHA'S EDITOR SHOULD BE FIRED!
  •  
    Jul 11 09:13 PM
    If you are a major Sirius stock holder, you seem to be conflicted. I'm a stock holder in Sirius Satellite Radio with a position greater than 10,000 shares. I am not confused. I want this merger with XM Satellite Radio to be approved by the FCC. Further, I agree with the DOJ's decision which approved the merger without conditions. This approval by the FCC will be in the consumers best interest. Get it....
  •  
    Jul 11 10:26 PM
    Bullshit. You and Tate are both Cunts.
  •  
    Jul 11 10:42 PM
    Michael, dont you think the DOJ (who had all the internal documents of both companies) would have seen what you have. If the radio did exist ahd was already out then, why did the DOJ go as far as to say it would be some time (up to 3 years) before they would be in the OEMS. The problem I have here with your opinion is that you have to believe that the DOJ totally missed something only you were able to catch, and I am sure you being you sent them a detailed letter telling them what to look for. So please for the sake of the shareholders stop. If a mistake was made as you say it was, then it really at this point will do nothing but delay the merger and cost the shareholders. Lets face it, the merger is going through you know that the only thing you have done now, is give the NAB another talking point. It is almost as bad as what GTP is coming up with, it is not as sound as your opinion. but it still slows the process.
  •  
    Jul 11 11:02 PM
    C3SR's position was taken from Mr. Hartleib anybody that does some checking will see Hartleib said it first.
    lOOK AT THE FILINGS HE MADE WITH THE FCC and how long ago that was.

    Sirius and XM made the Sirius/XM radios long ago and have tried to fool everyone into thinking putting two radios together was a big undertaking. Just look at what is in handheld devices and you can see that two radios in one case is no breakthrough technology.

    Yes it looks strange to hold stock in a company and do what he is doing.

    Look at were Sirius would be today if Sirius and XM had made those radios available.
    Many myself included think that Sirius with a higher market share were the customer had a choice would have put XM out of business.

    Sirius and XM were told to make and sell the radios and that is most likley what they did but did not make make them commercially available
    In other words did not turn them on so that they can pick up the other service.

    Mr Hartleib stopped the Lawsuit that would have given Sirius what can be thought of as a umbrella protecting them from the shareholders.

    As a stockholder of Sirius i feel that i have been cheated and lied to. Those radios should have been turned on years ago.

    With XM to Sirius converters that we know are on the market one has to wonder why Sirius has not offered them to people that would like to switch to Sirius. That i see as more proof that Sirius did and does not want to do what is best for stockholders.


  •  
    Jul 11 11:16 PM
    If folks like the writer of this story and had any clue as to what was going on in sat. radio they would know that when you buy your car you get either xm or sirius radio with fm and am etc. I am so sick of articles like this making crap claims about these two com[panies. If you go to fcc website and look at consumer comments they are all for it.
    Then we have morons like nab,rainbow group and evrey other leach demanding that they be given tradio spectrum because its good for competion.
    Well mr. writer am I missing something or do we not have the ability to listen to am fm or just a plain c/d. I choose to pay my 12.95 a month to listen to my music.
    Now the radios will work with eachother I spoke to both radios about merger what the heck are you talking about they need new radios
    also how can you say you are a shareholder i think you lie in your article and work for mr. jackson who by the way should be getting a fine from fcc for his comments about mr. obama.
    This merger has really shown how bad our goverment,congress,sen... and all else are crap and CAN NOT DO THEIR JOBS THAT I PAY FOR THEM TO DO.
    OIL PRICES,WAR WERE HEADING INTO A FRIGIN DEPPRESION AND JOHN KERRY MR. WANNABEE PRESIDENT SPENDS HIS TIME WRITING ABOUT HOW THIS MERGER SHOULD NOT HAPPEN LOL WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE MR. WRITER AND ALL ELSE WHO OPPOSE THIS MERGER GET A FRIGIN LFE YOU MORON
  •  
    Jul 12 12:56 AM
    MICHAEL HARTLEIB
    P.O. Box 7078
    Laguna Niguel, CA 92607


    March 17, 2008 SENT VIA UPS and E-mail

    Attn: William M. Regan Attn: Jeffrey P. Fink
    Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, LLP Robins, Umeda & Fink, LLP
    425 Lexington Avenue 610 West Ash Street, Ste. 1800
    New York, NY 10017 San Diego, CA 92101


    RE: Greg Brockwell et al v Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. et al
    Index No: 600819/07

    Dear Mr. Regan and Mr. Fink:

    As a member of the Class who will be filing an objection to the proposed settlement, and as per my telephone conversation with Mr. Fink on this day, this letter is respectfully submitted as a formal request for:

     Transcript of the deposition of Mel Karmazin
     All documents provided to plaintiff’s counsel regarding Morgan Stanley’s financial analysis of the merger. All interrogatories, questions and answers. Agreements between Morgan Stanley and Sirius Satellite Radio. All documents provided to plaintiff’s counsel regarding the additional fees of up to $7.5 million and documents and/or internal memos detailing the parameters and/or reasoning to determine whether or not to pay these proposed additional fees.

    I am advised by Mr. Fink that the aforementioned information is under a confidentiality agreement and/or a protective order between the parties at the request of defendants and their counsel. This information is material to my filing of the Opposition to the Proposed Settlement and is warranted to a member of the Class, as my interests (as well as the rest of the Class) are not being represented in a satisfactory manner. Other members of the Class will be joining me in the Opposition of the Proposed Settlement and/or opting out of this Class. One has to wonder why plaintiff’s counsel would allow defendants and their counsel to obfuscate this case and shroud it in a cloak of secrecy when the plaintiff’s counsel is supposed to be providing clarity and complete disclosure of all material facts to the Class and its members.









    Page 2
    March 17, 2008



    In speaking with Ms. Schmachtenburg today, she informed me the preliminary hearing is scheduled for March 31, 2008. I advised her I would be filing an opposition to the proposed settlement on my behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated. I also informed her I was having difficulty obtaining the necessary discovery from counsel and that I would be seeking the Court’s assistance.

    Please provide me with the requested information as soon as possible as time is of the essence.


    Sincerely,



    Michael Hartleib

    MH/th

    Encl


    Cc: Honorable Richard B Lowe III
    c/o Miss Schmachtenburg
  •  
    Jul 12 01:24 AM
    To Seeking Alpha:
    I think you have been duped into posting Mr. Hartleib's article so that he can have more attention, which in my opinion is what he really wants. I no longer think the guy is a NAB mole, although the NAB played him like a fiddle on this one. Proof of his desires here is the fact that he keeps re-posting his prior filings here, which merely gives him a new forum to get the attention he appears to so desire. I mean, seriously (or siriusly as those on board call it), how can the guy claim to own so much stock in the company, yet take actions that will financially ruin the company... He has probably lost a lot of money in the stock of this company as its PPS went down, and at this point, he has lost all perspective. My unprofessional advice is that he either sell all his shares and forget about the company, or instead double, triple or quadriple down on his investment, and get on board the merger,...
  •  
    Jul 12 04:32 AM
    "You've heard AM..."
    (background: mundane talk show, static, signal fading in and out"
    "AM sucks!"
    "You've heard FM..."
    (background: station after station of obnoxious used car commercials")
    "FM sucks, too!"
    "Now, hear what you've been missing..."
    (background: 15 second montage of the greatest songs from top 5 music genres, combined with a winding sound reminiscent of the Beatles "A Day in the Life", culminating with the Voice of Howard Stern saying, "It's happening, Robin!" while some bimbo riding the Sybian screams in ecstasy, "Oh my GOD!!!!!!!")

    1 second of silence....

    "Sirius/XM Satellite Radio...Finally, radio that doesn't suck!"


    I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

    SIRIUS WILL BE KING!!!!!!!!!!
  •  
    Jul 12 08:27 AM
    crfceo,

    your not getting it they the companys told the fcc the dual chips would be available mid 2004.which has came and went!

    and sirius flat out stated in public forum after forum these devices were coming to market by 2007..

    where are they, you as and investor have been harmed by this failure to deploy as mandated.

    hartlieb is correct if a consumer is forced to pay and change out hardware as you now admit the visteon device require some componet change out...the mandate was about seamless change at no cost to the consumer for hardware..

    if you were as well schooled as you claim you would understand the issue. sirius and xm can stream each others content today based on available spectrum which is limited.and this is what they plan to do when the merger is oked..

    but if you have been following the documents you also understand sirius only requires a tuner mod or update to activate the concept.

    however xms devices, based upon the same filed documets indicate clearly still need other areas modified to work with both services.

    later you will need to purchase a new device if you want to access the content of both companys on a single device.

    this is the effect that the fcc tried to prevent by requiring a truly dual device.

    and the companys would have each paid half the cost/burden for the device.

    how is this not a harm to the public and investors which were told time and time again the devices were coming.by sirius management.

    xms position has been well maybe some devices but not all!

    sirius has indicated within filings they have made under contract truly dual chipsets in lots of only 200 and even forwarded them for testing by certain oems.

    you also accept at face value what your told by these companys.

    hes also correct on the issue both companys used