I'm supposed to pay for what??

Orbitcast has reported that Sirius XM Satellite subscribers may be asked to pay an additional $2 per month due to the proposed royalty rate increase. Say what?

The story went on to claim that the FCC allowed Sirius XM to pass these royalty fees along to the consumer as part of last year's merger.

Let me get this straight. First the merger wasn't supposed to raise the fees for subscribers yet offer additional combined programming. Yet, as a Sirius subscriber for more than 3 years, I now would have to pay additional to get baseball and other XM programming. Even though I personally was looking forward to having the baseball broadcasts available, I'm not paying anything extra for it. It was not my understanding that I would have had to, or I would have written in opposition of the merger from which I am not benefitting.

Now, I may be FORCED to pay additional for music royalties? I rarely listen to their music channels. Even if I did, I don't listen to all of them. I doubt that people who enjoy classical music also listen to heavy metal. But they expect me to pay so they can play songs I don't like? After they have eliminated channels because of the merger and some duplication?

Yet some people wonder why satellite radio has been struggling the past few months. It is not because of the drop in new car sales. If the offering was good enough, and was what was promised to us consumers, new subscriptions would be happening. Hardly anyone is buying HD Radios, which even with a few recent improvements, doesn't offer enough of an incentive even to those who understand what HD Radio is and does.

Now I might be "forced" to pay for music that I don't even like????

Yes, I agree that performers should be compensated for their music being played in a public forum. But if I am supposed to pay for it, I should have the choice over which songs and artists I hear.

Come to think of it, I already do. Looks like my MP3 player will get an even longer daily use before too long.

If only AM and FM stations would have kept up quality live and local programming like they used to do. We wouldn't know HD or satellite radio because we wouldn't have needed it.

hough Sirius XM is unable to officially raise its rates yet, as a condition of the satellite radio merger, Orbitcast reports that subscribers could see some additionally fees starting this summer. Subscribers will likely see their bill go up approximately $2 a month, as satellite radio music royalty rate increases will be passed along to the consumer.

According to Orbitcast's sources, the increase in costs will take effect on July 29 and according to a leaked document, Sirius XM "can no longer absorb these increased costs" in performance royalties. In 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board instituted increased performance royalty rates for satellite radio, which have gone up every year and will continue to increase into 2012. The rate increased from six percent of gross revenue in '07 and '08 to 6.5 percent this year. It will reach seven percent in 2010, 7.5 percent in 2011 and eight percent in 2012.

As part of the Sirius and XM merger, the FCC allowed the combined satcaster to pass along the royalty fees, effective July 29, 2009, whereas the company was required to absorb the fees itself before this date. According to Orbitcast's information, most subscribers will be charged an extra $1.98/month, while those with multiple radio plans with be charged another 97 cents/month and "Mostly Music" subscribers will pay $1.53/month. However, "Best Of Sirius" and "Best Of XM" subscribers are exempt, as are subscribers who renew a long-term plan before July 29.

Sirius XM enhances "Lifetime" subscription offer

Either satellite radio as we know it is in trouble, or there is a revenue push toward the end of the calendar year. Or both.

Sirius Satellite has made a "lifetime subscription" available over the past 3 years for a one-time fee of $500, although they have kept that option rather quiet over the past 18 months or so. Today (Dec. 5th), they e-mailed their monthly and annual subscribers a special offer to "Save up to $150" on a lifetime membership. It appears that they are allowing an "upgrade" for the original Sirius subscribers to ADD "The Best of XM".

And, they are trying to get their annual and monthly subscribers to up the ante and go for a lifetime subscription.

With speculation about the future of the combined entity now known as Sirius XM, there have been several comments appearing lately about how lifetime subscriptions are now considered risky based on rising uncertainty.

But I digress. We supposedly have a merger of these 2 companies, one which took more than 18 months to finally complete. That's more than a year longer than the Exxon/Mobil merger took years ago. Now, since the "merger", subscribers to one part of the "merged" service are now being asked to pony up ADDITIONAL funds for only a "Best of" package. (????)

Looks like it is time to stand up and be counted. Why should consumers have to pay more for what they are supposed to get at no additional cost? If XM and Sirius aren't ready yet with the technology to present all of the channels for both at the same monthly cost, shouldn't the cost for a PARTIAL plan be reduced?

I was all for the merger thinking I would get everything both services have to offer at no additional cost. After months and months, the merger was approved. Now I am getting a request for more money for an additional "Best Of".

If this is how this supposed combined company is going to operate, it won't be long before they are called "Ex-M".

Clear Channel reduces its own HD listening audience

With so much of the attention on the realignment of Sirius XM (and it is understandable), so much of the focus has been taken away from HD Radio. Many believe that HD Radio is a major reason that Clear Channel fought the Satellite Radio merger and helped the merger process drag on months longer than it should have.

Last year when Clear Channel began to add HD channels for many of its stations, the CC web site included a regularly updated list of its HD channels online, along with links so that people could listen to a choice of their HD stations via the internet.

Personally, I took advantage of that several times and liked what I heard on some of the channels their stations offered. Granted, some of the specific channels went the 'catchy name' route, and as a result I had no idea what they were programming. But that is a marketing issue.

Many of their HD music channels went away from the typical Clear Channel restricted playlists and were actually worth a listen.

It had been a month or so since I had listened to one of their HD channels while working in my office, and this morning I went to the site that would enable me to see which HD channels were available via the various markets across the country. And for the first time in over a year, there were no HD Radio choices that I know of.

This web page seems to have been replaced with the menu of online stream choices from Clear Channel around the country. Yes, the actual over-the-air radio stations, which can be selected by music or talk format.

I'm sure that the response from the Clear Channel powers that be will be something along the lines of how they wanted people to sample the HD channels as an incentive for them to buy an HD Radio set so they could enjoy their local HD services. And I can appreciate and understand that response.

However, it is not as though HD Radio has caught on to the point where taking the HD stations away from the internet is not a big deal. As listener dissatisfaction with radio grows, only having their over-the-air stations available for streaming is not going to make people want to rush out and buy an HD Radio for what they will perceive as "more of the same". When they don't enjoy "the same" nearly as much as they once did.

Face it, if AM and FM radio had the degree of competition and over-the-air stations making the effort they once did, there probably wouldn't be any worry about satellite, HD, online channels, or any of the other radio alternatives that have spung within the past few years.

I'm not sure how typical of a radio "consumer" I am these days. But I can tell you that now that the Clear Channel HD Radio channels are not an option for me, I have already gone back to an assortment of online "free" music channels in the different categories that I enjoy.

I wonder whether or not radio station owners will be able to get enough of the population base to sample HD Radio. Not having it available online, and not telling anyone (that I know of) that it has been moved, is not the way to make it happen.