It sounds like you’re suggesting that only one automobile manufacturer would be acceptable because horses are always available.
Bad analogy. A horse isn’t a substitute for a car for a number of obvious reasons.
An iPod, on the other hand, is a substitue for a satrad.
Question - are you a satrad subscriber? If not, why do you care about this merger?
That’s actually a ridiculous and glib analogy.
How ridiculous.
Nobody's holding a gun to a consumer's head and forcing him or her to get all of their audio entertainment from satellite radio. If XM and Sirius merge, terrestrial radio, iPods, etc. are going nowhere; all will compete for the consumer's ears. Where's the monopoly?
No.
Even if this merger is allowed, there is still other competition in the “radio” field, most of which is actually free to the customer. Yes, that’s right, pay radio (satellite) is successfully competing with “free”. There’s regular radio, there’s HD radio, there’s satellite radio, and there’s internet radio. There are also now ‘radio’ services for cell phones. There’s also time-delayed ‘radio’ in the form of podcasts.
Your scenario doesn’t hold water. What you are suggesting is that GM shouldn’t have bought SAAB because that reduced the number of “Swedish designed automobiles” on the US market.
Unless protected by the government, monopolies do not last. They are inherently inefficient and eventually fall to competition.