Listener's choice?

The proposed merger between XM and Sirius satellite radio companies has raised questions about the regulations of airwaves and new technologies. But in the end, these companies are asking listeners to pay, while AM and FM are still free. So the Business Journal asks:

Is satellite radio really a viable business proposition?

Kenneth Marek

Managing Director FocalPoint Partners LLC 

I don't have satellite radio, but I think the merger is a favorable thing. It's great for the shareholders, and it's great for the listeners because it increases programming and it creates long-term viability for satellite radio. If they didn't merge, satellite radio would go away. It isn't like other monopolies like the electrical wire company. If you want electricity you buy it from that source. You have a lot of other options for the kind of content offered on satellite radio. Customers can get music from a number of mediums: over mobile phones, i-Pods, conventional radio.

Richard M. Wolf 

Senior Vice President of Leasing Madison Marquette

I have XM radio. I had it for free for a year in my car. I liked it so much that I continued with it. Satellite radio is commercial-free and there is more variety: comedy channels, Broadway shows, MSN news. It is just far better than the normal chatter on AM or FM radio. It is more directed and more intelligent. I think the merger between XM and Sirius is going to be a good thing if it provides more channels and more selection without having to choose between the two companies. On the other hand it might get more expensive. XM and Sirius are the only two providers of satellite radio so they are going to have a monopoly on the market.

Dete Meserve

President Wind Dancer Films

I have had XM for two years. I like the choices and I like that you can listen to it without commercials or, in the case of National Public Radio, pledge drives. I like that you can listen to music you would never hear on commercial radio because it isn't radio appropriate or it isn't in the top rotation. I think the XM/Sirius merger is terrible. The whole idea of broadcasting is providing multiple channels and multiple choices to get information from a variety of voices in programming. Without competition, diversity and variety are a secondary issue. The listeners are going to suffer. When you lose the competition, you lose that edge that keeps satellite radio interesting and relevant.

Natalie Svider

Account Director, Entertainment and Consumer Specialist Lewis Global Public Relations Agency

I'm a serious satellite radio subscriber. I went the Sirius route over XM because I'm a big fan of the NFL and they have the NFL network. I think when the two of them join forces, it will be big. XM has better infrastructure, as in better satellites and transmission, while Sirius has the better programs. As for terrestrial radio. I still listen to it because there are programs I like that I won't get on satellite. It's not like cable television, which will also include the basic stations in addition to others. So, I like to listen to terrestrial radio in the car and then hop over to satellite in the office.

Bill Simon 

Senior Client Partner Entertainment/Media Practice Korn/Ferry International

I'm a big fan of satellite radio but I don't have it. I find regular radio hard to listen to because of commercials. I'm a news junky and I listen to a lot of NPR but they often have fundraisers. I know XM and Sirius and I know people at each company. They are both losing money, and the merger will allow them to survive as one. The hope is that satellite radio will start to thrive economically. I think it has a future. A lot of consumers are tired of the bombardment of commercials and satellite radio and radio in general serve a purpose.