We want competition AND the public to be served.

Broadcasting, and yes, satellite radio is broadcasting, is more than just an every day business. In return for access to the PUBLIC's airwaves, broadcasters must show they are acting in the public interest. That is our primary concern with this merger - that the public interest will be harmed. Sirius and XM provide outlets for public affairs programming you can not get on regular radio stations. By them competing with each other, they continue to strive to provide the best programming possible.

You are right that satellite radio is an excellent addition to our broadcasting options, but whenever there is any monopoly, there is a GREAT risk that consumers will get screwed. If Low Power FM stations were all owned by the same company, we would oppose that too.

To say that satellite radio is in the same exact market as regular radio is like saying cable systems are the same market as the local 4 or 5 TV stations. And when a cable system gets a franchise agreement, they have to agree to provide for the public interest. Some of these include public/governmental/educational access stations, free cable for the local schools, or free internet for the local government.

We also need to protect against the slippery slope. If it's argued that satellite radio can be a monopoly because there is competition from regular radio, then the argument can be made that all TV can be owned by one company, and newspapers owned by one company, because TV and radio and newspapers compete against each other and it's still not a monopoly. I don't want to see that happen. The information we get from these sources is too important for our democracy and community to consolidate it too far.

I have tried XM radio, and liked it. I would wager Sirius is good too.

Here's what I would suggest. As a stockholder, you can urge Sirius to propose a set of consumer protections they will live by in the event of FCC approval. We could end up with a win-win deal.