The Merger: Never Forget.

Your computer would be so much happier this way.

The hottest news off the press in Radioland comes to us in the form of satellite radio. That's right, satellite radio is taking the forefront yet again, but in not such a big way this time around. XM Radio, which was recently reported to death in regard to the alleged merger-to-be (hint: scroll to the post at the bottom of this blog to further educate yourself), is persevering in its competition with Sirius Satellite Radio to team up with Windows for their new computer operations program. Windows Vista, which is set to make its debut tomorrow, promises to offer an assumedly glorious "music hub," complete with more than 80 channels of music through the availability of XM Satellite Radio. Windows has partnered with XM to offer Vista users a free and whopping three-day trial period and the option to continuing with the enticing opportunity by paying a subscription fee of $7.99 per month. Sounds like a deal maker, right?

Well, as much as this may be great and all for Windows shoppers, this is merely coming off as an opportunity for both Windows and XM to promote their products. What the naïve public may be unaware of is that XM already offers its services on its website if you are yearlong subscriber. With XM as a simple standalone program on the new Windows interface, each company is simply using one other to promote their own agenda and product. For Windows, XP has become the international standard for almost every computer, and since it the basic mainstay operating system for the majority of purchased computers in the world, the company has to find ways to attract attention to their new system. Their website is a prime example, with a section that lists the top 100 reasons to purchase and/or upgrade to the Vista version (need I say more?). Surprisingly, not one of those reasons has anything to do with the inclusion of an XM station. But by refraining from mentioning the joint venture, the company is clearly using the partnership as an additional way to make a buzz in the press and give the program a platform.

For XM, the intentions behind the business handshake are clear. Free ad space on every new Windows system purchased, increased subscription rates, a tantalizing three-day sucker period… The collusion is a no-brainer. But whatever happened to the merger with Sirius, and the camaraderie that was meant to be? For the past two weeks, the press has been buzzing with talk of the infamous Satellite merger, or the clash of the broadcasting titans, yet XM still seems to want to pull ahead of Sirius in a big way. With an alleged 7.63 million subscribers already cutting checks to the company, XM has been ahead of Sirius in terms of subscription rates and overall popularity, with Sirius clocking in at only 6.02 million subscribers. While talks of a deal may have been given the final nail in the coffin by the FCC, XM is using this opportunity to pull ahead of Sirius yet again, giving them a subtle blow by engaging in this "mega" opportunity.

But that's the nature of business, right? To try to squash your opponents and engage in healthy competition, both fiscally and (added bonus) emotionally? XM may be popping up on every new Windows system, but that doesn't really mean much for the company. XM requires that users have Internet access in order to use their services, but the free Internet radio that already exists makes the Satellite provider seem unimportant to the Vista system. Why pay for XM simply because it is now featured on your music hub, when you can easily log on to MySpace or any FM station's website to hear the music that you like for free? Sure, there will be a gaggle of suckers that think that there was no previous opportunity to get XM radio on their computers, but those who think that way win most likely roll in the same crowd that spends their time on vacations in the souvenir shops. For real Internet users, the online radio providers (and podcasts, just to mention) are supple means of accessing music without the added costs. $7.99 may not seem like a lot of money every month, but that amounts to almost $100 extra shoveled over to a provider per year. Is it worth it, even after you pay the $100 to $300 for the new Vista system?

That's for you to decide. Satellite radio services are designed to offer music programming that is unattainable elsewhere, and as with any product that has exclusivity in the market, there will be a dedicated mass that follows. For those intrigued - tickled even - by the idea that XM is on your new Vista system for your enjoyment, think again. XM is using this opportunity to crush their almost-was business partner, Sirius, and attempting to dominate the market as they were doing before talks of a merger. So should customers really look at this business move as a way to dominate the market? Of course. But should we be led to believe that XM is ultimately out to satisfy our media interests, rather than their business ones? That, my friend, lies in your hands. Then again, XM wouldn't be a conglomerate if they didn't bank on profits, right? So the next time you read a single article in the flurries of satellite news, just think about it. Are they trying to dupe me, or are they really trying to dupe me?

A Radio Version of Tivo? Hey PopCatcher, Catch This.

The Catcher of Pop

The one thing that everyone complains about in regards to FM radio is the overabundance of commercials. Actually, people have gripes with much more than just that, but for blogatory purposes, we'll just focus on the commercials themselves. Imagine radio without those pesky clips of jammed sounds: uninterrupted streams of music, more room for DJs to blab, and countless other possibilities. The radio audience would increase without question, as people would have more of an incentive to tune in. But what if a commercial-free land of fantasy could be taken to the next extreme? The next step would involve being able to download the tracks from the radio as they are played, allowing you to carry around all of the latest jams on your MP3 player fresh from the voice-box and free of all those ads and DJ speak. Will there ever be such a glorious solution?

According to a company hailing from Sweden, the answer has arrived in the form of brand-new technology. Their product, the PopCatcher MusicDock MD-601 (elegant yet simple, right?), promises to be the consumer's radio-combing best friend, as it offers a type of tool that has been previously unfounded in the world of radio. As detailed on the website, the PopCatcher receives radio signals and, through its one-of-a-kind technology, distinguishes excess programming - DJ talk and commercials - from the songs on the station at hand. The MusicDock then separates the songs and converts them into individual MP3 files at 192 kbps, and loads them onto a portable MP3 player that is only compatible with the MusicDock. The result is a playlist on your portable music device of songs that just appeared on your favorite station, without the guff of ads and DJs.

So it seems like the technology would be a hit in a mass market, right? Well, there seems to be several roadblocks that will prevent this from actually becoming a marketable product. The main concern with the product is that it has been developed, but has not been manufactured and the company is simply taking pledged orders for the appliance. How could a company that has just a prototype of the product available on their website, in addition to a form for purchasers to be informed when the machine is available, entice consumers to want to buy the product? PopCatcher does not even have a price set on it, and the company will inform purchasers when it in fact has a definitive value. In this regard, the company is merely creating hype for a product that has no foreseeable release date, in addition no informed cost.

But while the product seems to lack an existence, there will be many problems with the technology when the appliance is made available (apparently, some people already received advance promotional versions of it). As a radio DJ that has edited music for over five years on a weekly basis (hip-hop can be dirty, you know), I have found that there is no program that can scan through a music file and separate the chatter from the music. While the MusicDock promises to do this through the art of reading algorithms, it is not as simple as it may seem. On the site's cheesy flash movie that shows how the machine reads these waves, it makes it seem as if the song itself is a straightforward up-down pattern, which boggles my mind. A music file is completely complex, and looks a lot like the pattern shown at the beginning of the flash demo. In this way, the company is completely manipulating the ignorance of the public in regard to reading music waves by presupposing that it's as easy as pie to do it. In essence, scanning through algorithms is extremely tedious and difficult, and I firmly believe that a product cannot do such a thing.

Maybe it's just me being conservative in reference to editing music and upset that I could have potentially wasted so much time slaving in front of my computer, individually highlighting curse words in algorithm form and reversing them. But there are other factors that lead me to believe that the technology cannot exist. DJs tend to play pumping music beneath their vocals, although they usually do not speak in a rhythm that accompanies that of the track. In hip-hop and rap, emcees do rap along to the beat, but in comparison to a DJ talking over a beat, they both essentially feature vocals on top of a rhythmic track. And in the same way that rappers often go off of the beat and play with delivery, a DJ can accidentally sync up the track in terms of rhythm then fall off of it, creating a mirror between a rapper's and a DJ's algorithms. It essentially boils down to the question that if the MusicDock is determining between two algorithms that look similar when constructed in waveform, how can it be so smart as to separate the two? My response is that it simply cannot. If a human cannot determine how algorithms differ by simply looking at them, then how could a machine? I suppose that technology is invented to do things for humans that they cannot do themselves, but in this case, the technology has not been explained enough to evoke credibility. That, my Internet friends, is reason enough to end my lament against the product.

But I continue. Say that the product can actually measure algorithms and convert them into MP3s for their player. The problem that lies in selling the product in a package is that consumers are reluctant to switch from their iPod to a new music player. The MusicDock MP3 player seems sleek and pretty enough, but wouldn't it be much more convenient if you could cut out the cost of a new player and simply use the one that you already have? That downside of purchasing the product as a package is that it diminishes its value, and gives consumers less incentive to purchase it. But if the product is successful, then buyers will have to deal with another downside of the technology. When the machine separates the MP3 tracks, it does not label them, since the radio does not attach tags to every song that they play. Listeners will be completely unknowledgeable about what song is playing, making DJ chatter seem like it actually serves a positive role. Good without the bad? I suppose not.

Finally, there is the question of how legal the product will be. The point of the radio is that there is no way for listeners to steal what they are hearing, as they can do with the internet and peer-to-peer services. With this product, consumers will be in possession of whatever the radio plays and additionally be in control of what songs remain on the player, allowing the user to shape their library according to their tastes. As CDs are vanishing from existence and the MP3 is taking over as the dominant form of music technology, the player will become a tool of piracy, and with this newfound availability, the FCC will have a field day with regulations and product constraints. Is this product worth all of the trouble for everyone who is involved, including consumers, technology developers, radio personnel and the regulatory boards? If you believe that stealing songs from the radio should be available for anyone who wants to do it, then the answer is obviously yes, but for those of us who prefer to listen to music on our iPods without all of the technological hassles, then the answer is clear: PopCatcher, stay away.

Who's To Blame: The Radio or You?

The Garden of Eden

Radio contests have been a staple in the industry ever since the 1930's, when contestants would have dance-a-thons to all of the hippest records, all-the-while fighting their exhaustion to win the measliest of measly prizes. The winner? Who can boogie the longest, of course - a stoic test of endurance. As history repeats itself, the listening public has adhered to this type of fanatical radio behavior since the golden eras of hoop skirts and cardigans, with intentions ranging from desire for free merchandise to the thirst for the spotlight to the actual need for the prize at hand. The exchange is simple: disc jockeys are given promotional items from companies who recognize this type of inexpensive product exposure, and radio stations offer their listeners an opportunity to win that product by engaging in risk-taking acts. The stations inevitably gain more listeners by offering programming that dazzles with excitement and unpredictability, and the cycle is conveniently set into motion when the audience swallows the somewhat mindless entertainment.

But what about the mishaps, you ask? Radio stations sponsor on-air contests for freebies every day, but listeners barely hear about accidents when they occur. A recent and much publicized example of the opposite is the case of Jennifer Lea Strange, a 28-year-old mother of three who participated in a contest called "Hold Your Wee For A Wii," which took place on January 12, 2007. The competition was held by the Morning Rave program on KDND, or "The Edge," which operates out of Sacramento, California, and was based on a simple premise: 17 to 20 contestants were forced to imbibe as much water as they possibly could, and whoever held in the water the longest would win a Nintendo Wii. While the competition seemed potentially harmless in itself, Strange complained of headaches on the air, and soon after winning the contest and returning to her home, she was discovered dead on her bathroom floor by her mother, having succumbed to water intoxication.

The results of her death have taken the form of radio targeting. The station immediately held its staff accountable and fired the entire morning crew, and the family of Strange is now both threatening to sue the station and encouraging the FCC to revoke the station's license for the incident. Also, audio from the contest has been posted on YouTube, making the contest publicly available and - like any widely accessible media - open for criticism and analysis from those who happen upon the material. Upon listening to the clip from the show, listeners began to voice their opinions by writing over 300 letters to the station, which were divided into two basic categories. One of the overall attitudes was rooted in the idea that the station was fully accountable for her actions by subjecting Strange and the others to self-torture, fully knowledgeable of the dangers of drinking massive volumes of water. The other opinion was that Strange was fully aware of the consequences that could result from her actions, and that as an adult, she was responsible for participating in such an event, not the station that made her do it.

In essence, this type of debate reverts back to the ancient example of Eve in the Garden of Eden, but in a radio context. Eve had been told not to eat from the tree of knowledge, but the snake in the Garden made it alluring by declaring that God purposely did not want her to possess his knowledge. Eve knew there would be consequences, yet she ate the fruit regardless. Was Eve to blame for wishing to have the wisdom of God, or was it the snake for tricking her into doing it? In this modern-day context, the station acted as the snake that enticed people with a gift (that was considerably less significant than all of the knowledge in the world), and Strange played the character of Eve. While a biblical comparison may be a bit drastic in such a situation, this example shows that since ancient times, there has been no clear definition of who is the culprit and the victim in the circumstances.

But just like how the snake was forever cursed to roam the earth on its belly and bite at the ankles of humans, the radio station is now being punished in the same way. Except in addition to this specific station suffering for their involvement in the death of an innocent woman, the whole radio industry may feel the consequential reverberations. The Strange family is appealing to the FCC to enforce legislation that would limit the capabilities of radio stations to hold contests, and as a result of this type of restriction, talk and morning radio programs may lose their appeal to a good portion of listeners. As cheeky and unimportant as those contests may seem to the general populous, many radio listeners are drawn in by the thrill and excitement of situations that do not involve them, and with television as an alternative with a visual counterpart, listeners may lose interest in radio altogether.

So the resolution can take several forms in preventing legislation that may put a damper on the entire industry. Radio stations do not want to lose the freedom to hold contests on the air, and listeners do not want to tune in to programming that is devoid of them. As a solution, the FCC is going to have to make decisions that will affect the future of radio programming. What the FCC should do is to specifically punish KDND for their involvement in the situation by either taking them completely off of the air or heavily fining them, but it should be done as an example. Other radio stations would be forced to learn a lesson from the situation and convinced to better monitor their programming and contests in an effort to make sure that they do not put their listeners in a situation that could be potentially life threatening.

But in an imperfect world, the radio stations would probably not take heed and inevitably slack after a short period of time, which is where the FCC should exercise their legal control. Laws should be made that specifically outline the consequences to be inflicted on stations that knowingly put their contestants in danger. While radio personnel can get around this by having their contestants sign papers that waive responsibility, the classic game of blame would be put on the participant, which is sad in the event of death but clear-cut enough to accurately resolve such a conflict. In the case of Strange, the FCC may be slow to respond the situation, but legislation will surely and inevitably be set in stone, and although it was unfortunate that this lesson had to be learned through the death of an innocent woman, radio and its listeners will be adequately protected in the future as a result.

Will XMas Siriusly Come Early This Year For Satellite Radio?

(Picture via Orbitcast)

The two major satellite radio companies, XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio, have been in recent talks to merge into a single conglomerate corporation, creating a generic monopoly that would govern the entire market. But in having these talks over the past few months, both companies are now being faced with counteractive legislation from the Federal Communications Commission that squanders any suggestion of sole ownership over the two licensed businesses. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin recently announced that there was a ban on such corporate activities, and in furthering the troubles of the alleged merger, antitrust regulators would have to endorse the legalities of the situation, in addition to several other forms of blockades, as outlined by Ryan Saghir here. While the FCC seems steadfast in their ban, there is a glimmer of possibility that the legislation could be modified in accordance with the companies' plans, allowing them to merge and satellite radio to be controlled by a single body. The solution lies in rewriting the law, forcing the FCC to go back on its initial governance and admit wrongdoing. In the end, the companies would get what they want, but an ultimate result would be the spotlighting of the FCC's hypocrisy in regard to their regulations.

While the FCC may be unwilling to admit the impracticalities of their law, there holds some benefits in upholding their legislation. Unlike AM and FM radio stations, satellite radio is viewed as a moneymaking corporation, and since they charge listeners to have access to their product, the FCC is looking at the merger monetarily. In this way, FCC is protecting the satellite subscribers. If the companies do in fact merge, then they would hold a monopoly over their industry. As with any monopoly in the history of economics, the united company would have the ability to raise the prices of their product in addition to their subscription rates, thereby limiting the access to the product. Additionally, the company would be able to dictate everything in the market, and if subscribers decided that the indulgence of satellite radio is unnecessary and were unsatisfied with the product, the industry would crumble under their low subscription rates and the lack of a financial basis. In this way, the competition between the current satellite companies stands as a healthy situation in the eyes of the FCC, and in looking at it from this viewpoint, any listener and subscriber would have to agree.

But although the FCC may be protecting the industry and its consumers by upholding their legislation, there are mounds of proof that suggest that the merger would in fact be beneficial to the industry, with equal returns for the conglomerate and the consumer. The main advantage would be the alleviation of competition between the two companies, which has been a primary concern from each corporation since the burgeoning of the industry at the beginning of the new millennium. The amount spent on advertising by each side is exorbitant, dabbling in the mid-millions range, with each poster and commercial produced as an attempt to both take a jab at their competitor and accumulate subscribers. With a merger set in place, the overall corporation would be able to relax its efforts to capture the attention of the American public and inevitably add to their gigantic sum, which in turn would cut the number of ads in half (or to something marginally less substantial than the current amount).

As a result of lowering the effort in advertising, the companies would be able to produce better programming by pumping more money into what they already have, leading to the possible expansion of their programs and channels. The direct result of a merger would be a powerhouse of available programs, and instead of having to choose Sirius for Howard Stern or XM for Oprah, subscribers would be able to get it all without having to grapple with such a situation. With extra money in the bank from lowered advertising efforts, the conglomerate would also be able to better fund programs, expand their repertoire and ink deals with more prominent disc jockeys, all of which benefits the listeners by ameliorating the product's entertainment factor. Additionally, the company could somehow improve their technology in ways that seem trivial in a competitive world, like the development of a handheld satellite radio receiver or the ability to search through and listen to archived shows. The ability to develop this type of technology is currently available, but with each company focused on garnering more listeners and on their competitor, further technological improvement seems too unreachable in the current situation.

The ultimate result of the merger seems that it would be both a gift and a curse. With entertainment at its potential maximum, listeners would be able to listen to privileged programming and therefore receive the benefits of satellite radio that overshadow AM and FM radio (i.e. no commercials, the names of the playing song appears on your screen, big-name celebrities spinning their favorite records). At the same time, the corporation would be able to exist in a battle-free industry, which would inevitably improve their programming and fill their pockets. But with the good comes the bad: the company would hold executive power over the industry, and listeners would be completely dependent on a single entity that can increase the costs of subscription and allow the quality of production to deteriorate.

If the merger does inevitably happen, which it may after getting past all of the legal red tape, there should be rules imposed on the joint company to prevent the negative effects from occurring. The FCC should play an active role in governing the actions of the conglomerate, and could even make new legislation that would prevent the monarchial mishaps that could potentially happen. The corporation could even create sub-companies that offer different and subset services, so that there is room for small competition to break into the industry. But, of course, a merger would prevent the introduction of any new major competition, since the point of the merger is to squash any type of battlefield existence. The company would have to legally attest to the fact that they would not incrementally increase subscription rates, which is where the FCC should exercise control. If the end result is a success and satellite radio blossoms into a mass-market industry, the satellite radio industry could reign supreme over traditional wave frequency radio, and consequently, the success could permanently change the methods of how the American populous is entertained and forever change the world of business.