I do some work with NAB, and I think this proposed merger would create a pure monopoly. There are only two entities that provide a nationwide service of satellite radio, in which listeners have to pay to subscribe. That is XM and Sirius. Why would consumers what one company to have a monopoly on that service? When have monopolies ever been good for consumers?

That would only be true if Satellite Radio existed in a vacuum. It does not. Sat Radio does not solely compete against other Sat Radio companies. It competes with ipods, regular radio (the hundreds of channels owned by members of the NAB), and anything else you can plug into your car. If regular radio was not competing with Sat. then why is the NAB in such a huff and appearing at every congressional hearing? If its different, then the NAB's testimony is pointless. "Why would consumers what one company to have a monopoly on that service?" I have sirius. I love Howard Stern. I also like baseball. Currently, to have BOTH Howard and baseball, I'd have to get TWO pieces of equipment, have them BOTH take up room in my car, and pay TWO separate subscriptions. If the merger goes down, then that is all reduced. Sat. radio is not something you must have. If the prices rise to extremely high areas, they would lose subscribers. Both companies are losing money. Money wasted on combating each other could be used in more constructive ways.