Although the Department of Justice has removed a major hurdle for the proposed Sirius/XM merger, the FCC's ruling on the matter could still go either way. Demands from the usual selection of advocacy groups, such as Public Knowledge (outlined in our recent story, DOJ Approves XM, Sirius Merger), are to be expected, but opposition to the merger has also arisen from a fairly surprising source: Clear Channel.

The media conglomerate, which rose to power after the massive FCC deregulations of 1996, has traditionally been a major target for anti-media monopoly groups rather than a potential ally. Of course, very few companies have as much to lose from the potential media powerhouse that would be created from the XM/Sirius partnership as Texas-based Clear Channel.

In a complaint filed earlier this month, Clear Channel outlined its objections to the proposed merger, stating:

The XM-Sirius merger as proposed would not only eliminate intramodal competition in the satellite radio service but also aggregate 25 MHz of spectrum in one licensee, more than that allocated to the entire AM and FM terrestrial radio bands combined. In any given market, it would permit the satellite radio provider to transmit roughly 40 times more channels of programming than the largest terrestrial broadcast radio licensee in that market, creating the potential for siphoning advertising revenue, talent and high-quality programming from free, over-the-air radio without any concomitant public interest obligations on satellite radio. Those consequences would impact directly and adversely the ability of terrestrial radio broadcasters to fulfill their core mission of serving their local communities.

Aware of the very real possibility that the FCC might not buy into Clear Channel's line of reasoning, the media giant goes on to list a number of proposed rules that ought be instated should the merger go through.

Firstly, it proposes access to "no less than 50-percent" of the satellite spectrum by third parties (that is, neither Sirius nor XM). That's an interesting proposal, especially in light of the fact that Clear Channel has owned a portion of XM programming for some time.

Clear Channel wants at least 5 percent of satellite programming devoted to "public interest," a concept that has been the bane of media conglomerates serving the public. Clear Channel also insists that public-decency laws be applied to the satellite radio spectrum--a restriction that has been avoided in the past, since satellite radio doesn't transmit over public airwaves. It's the same argument that has helped the Internet and cable TV avoid such governance.

Fourth, Clear Channel would like to see a complete ban on both local programming and advertising revenue on satellite radio, stating, "Siphoning local advertising would pose a direct threat to the ability of terrestrial broadcast radio to fulfill its core missions."

The conglomerate's final request is the inclusion of HD radio reception in all future satellite radio receivers. Stating that XM/Sirius's failure to include such a feature in hardware would give the company" the incentive and capability, through its dominant market position, to engage in anti-competitive behavior by locking up exclusive agreements with automobile manufacturers, thereby impeding dramatically the growth of HD radio."

Clear Channel has reportedly met with the FCC several times and laid out its complaints on the subject. Most recently the company filed a complaint on March 12, suggesting that the merger would "creat[e] a genuine threat to the economic framework of terrestrial radio." This suggestion doesn't sound all that different from complaints issued against Clear Channel itself, before the 1996 deregulation that helped the company become far and away the dominant force in the world of terrestrial radio.

A source of contention seems to be just how closely satellite radio is tied to its terrestrial counterparts. In many ways, satellite radio is no closer to tradition radio than cable is to broadcast television, which is to say that the technologies are different enough from each other as to be governed by the same set of rules.

To further editorialize, Clear Channel's hope that terrestrial radio might be able to get an upper hand in terms of localized programming was pretty much tossed out the window in 1996: The aforementioned deregulation led to a far more homogenized product not only across the radio dial but across the country.

The indecency caveat seems to be a direct shot at Howard Stern, who jumped ship from terrestrial radio to Sirius when the threat of heavy fines took a large toll on the content of his program.

As well, mandating the inclusion of HD radio on satellite receivers echoes the predicted death of radio at the hands of television. The inclusion of such technology would, of course, give owners of satellite radio hardware access to Clear Channel programming, but it makes about as much sense as requiring all television sets to include a radio dial.

And that, in the end, is perhaps the perfect analogy for Clear Channel's laundry list of complaints and suggestions. It's the defense mechanism of a company that hasn't felt the threat of serious capitalist competition in years and is reacting the only way it knows how: through legislation.

A number of serious monopolistic red flags should be raised by the proposed merger, but Clear Channel's attempt to paint its intentions as noble isn't fooling anyone.