|
Friday October 2, 2009
|
The Associated Press is reporting that in what amounts to the world's sneakiest price increase, Sirius XM subscribers are now being billed an extra $2 each month to cover new performance royalty fees.
Before, Sirius had absorbed the cost of the fees itself, but that's changing post-XM acquisition. The fee covers performance royalties paid to musicians, singers, and recording companies.
The report said that when the FCC approved the merger, it barred Sirius XM from raising prices for three years. That meant the only way Sirius XM could levy the charge is if they called it a separate surcharge--similar to all the baloney surcharges on your monthly cell phone bill.
It turns out Sirius began charging customers the extra $2 in August, and had begun issuing customer notifications for this by e-mail and post office mail in June. Is this why they haven't gone bankrupt yet, despite warnings back in February?
|
|
|
Mixx It
Digg It
Stumble
More...
October 2, 2009 3:34 PM
Nice article, but I wanted to respond by saying that those "baloney surcharges" on your cell bill do not necessarily need to be there. Forgive the slight diversion here, but I couldn't read that comment and not say anything. I work for the consumer advocacy division of the company Validas, where we electronically audit and subsequently reduce the average cell bill by 22 percent through our website, http://www.fixmycellbill.com. Many people come to us with inappropriate overcharging and we fix that. So, yes, while cell phone bills are a notorious place for hidden fees and gimmicks, this is changing. Now, if someone would just straighten out these problems with the Sirius bills...
Dylan
October 3, 2009 1:57 AM
Your title is inaccurate. Your own article refutes it. Your title claims that Sirius/XM raised prices without telling anyone, and then your article mentions emails and letters sent months ago [august is 2 months].
I am a Sirius/XM subscriber and I knew about these charges months ago. I thought you were reporting news here. I had to read everything to find that it was 'olds'.
So, how is this sneaky if we were told? Or, did you think everyone who didn't subscribe, or who didn't call in to subscribe, should know and THEY weren't informed?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it is sneaky if we were notified in June about changes 2 months later, and YOU find it sneaky that you didn't know in October.
I am not getting into RIAA and their impact on the radio/internet/satellite music industry. That wasn't your focus. Your title and first paragraph make it sound sinister, when anyone who had a brain and read their communications from the company [or logged in, or followed the RIAA negotiations last spring] should have known about this 4 months before you.
Or do you think people shouldn't be responsible for reading their bills and notice of change of terms?
October 3, 2009 3:11 AM
jason: I think that's blatant baiting, and most of your concerns are matters of semantics and anecdotal experience with the price hikes.
That being said, the fact remains that Sirius XM weren't allowed to hike prices, did it anyway in an underhanded way designed entirely go get around the regulatory oversight that they got from the FCC when they promised and swore up and down in front of them that the merger of Sirius and XM wouldn't lead to higher prices for the customer and would actually end in more competition in the market place.
Their merger has done the exact opposite of both of those things.
October 4, 2009 9:24 AM
I just found out about this by e-mail from XM(Oct). I do beleive this is what happened because of the merger. When I first signed up for XM it was $10.00 a month, now its $15.00 in less than six years. Now that I'm addicted to it, here comes the withdraws!