FCC To Vote To End Sharing Agreements

[Big Country News 435]

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/mobile/index/article/id/74631

 

FCC Commissioner will ask his chairman to vote to cancel JSA's. TVNews Check states that the deal would cancel all JSA applications currently and would give current JSA's two years to unwind. Groups such as Sinclair and Nexstar who often do this to their stations, and this would only hurt their integrity.

[sanewsguy 509]

This is going to severely damage the broadcasting industry. Hope Wheeler knows what he's getting himself into...

[ABC 7 Denver 1554]

 

This is going to severely damage the broadcasting industry. Hope Wheeler knows what he's getting himself into...

 

Damage or promote small business investment? I would rather see the big guys disappear and a collection of little guys spring up.

[Mrtraveler01 737]

 

Damage or promote small business investment? I would rather see the big guys disappear and a collection of little guys spring up.

 

I don't mind it if an owner has 2 stations in a market, but some people abuse the living daylights out of it to the point that one company owns the ABC, NBC, and My Network TV affiliates, and another independent station in the same exact market.

 

I think they should limit it somewhat but an outright ban seems a little extreme.

[GoldenShine9 1509]

It could be damaging in some cases and beneficial in others. In markets with fewer news operations than expected for its size (especially in medium markets with only 2 operations), it would likely allow new competition. But in small markets, and with 5th ranked or lower stations, it could kill off those small stations.

 

Triopolies (or more) should be pushed down though.

[Samantha 2878]

 

Damage or promote small business investment? I would rather see the big guys disappear and a collection of little guys spring up.

 

This.

 

We have very few independent minority-owned broadcasters, while small station groups are dying off. From the ashes of companies like Mission, Cunningham/Deerfield and American Spirit could come major opportunities—with the notable caveat that new studio facilities would have to be constructed or found in pretty much every market you got a station from.

 

What needs to happen in most of these cases is that SSAs are banned, not just JSAs, for this to work as intended. The way Wheeler is going with this, Mission would probably just have to not only program 85%+ of the entire day but also sell 85%+ of the ad time. Most of the Sander/Gannett stations are structured in such a way that Sander owns the stations but Gannett provides the local news and programming under SSA.

 

This does not say that all SSA/JSAs are bad, or that all duopolies are bad. Duopolies in major markets that don't include two Big Four stations are completely fine by me. In addition in very small or economically challenging markets SSA/JSAs may preserve a level of local service otherwise impossible to maintain (such as the new KYMA/KSWT combo in Yuma)—this is why there is a public interest waiver program, much like there is a failing station waiver, where an actual demonstrated need is shown.

 

But when the duopoly (SSA or owned) includes two Big Four stations (e.g. Joplin, MO), when there are two duopolies effectively under common ownership (Mobile/Pensacola, though WPMI and WEAR are fairly separate), and/or when a duopoly could seriously threaten local competition or leaves one other news producer in the market (Idaho Falls) in a market that could probably support three, those are the challenges. When cable customers see constantly marching fee increases and service disruptions to their local television stations, that is a problem.

[GoldenShine9 1509]

Would it be profitable though to have multiple news operations in small markets? It seems only the top 50 markets, at the most, can support 4 or more news operations. It is hard beyond the top 100 to 125 to even support 3 these days.

[tvjay 6]

 

What needs to happen is that SSAs are banned, not just JSAs, for this to work as intended. The way Wheeler is going with this, Mission would probably just have to not only program 85%+ of the entire day but also sell 85%+ of the ad time.

 

What is the difference between and SSA and JSA? Who uses JSAs?

[Samantha 2878]

 

Would it be profitable though to have multiple news operations in small markets? It seems only the top 50 markets, at the most, can support 4 or more news operations. It is hard beyond the top 100 to 125 to even support 3 these days.

 

Here are some examples of low DMAs (125 or higher) with three news operations:

 

127: Bakersfield, CA (KGET, KERO, KBAK/KBFX)

140: Medford, Oregon (KOBI, KTVL, KDRV)

147: Sioux City, Iowa (KTIV, KCAU, KMEG/KPTH)

150: Odessa-Midland, Texas (KMID/KPEJ, KOSA, KWES)

173: Rapid City, South Dakota (KOTA, KEVN, KNBN; KELO's news is repeated from Sioux Falls)

 

 

What is the difference between and SSA and JSA? Who uses JSAs?

 

An SSA is a Shared Services Agreement. Under an SSA the operations of one station are outsourced to a competing station. For instance, an SSA can cover engineering services, news production, and/or management [but NOT programming]. The licensee retains the station's license, though the third party often takes ownership of the station's assets.

 

A JSA is a Joint Sales Agreement. In a JSA a station sells the other station's ad inventory. This can raise prices for television advertising in the market.

 

In an LMA, or Local Marketing Agreement, the functions of a JSA and SSA are combined, and the third party station also programs the entire other station's ad time. LMAs were banned in 1996 with all pre-existing LMAs being grandfathered. For instance, WOIO and WUAB entered into an LMA in 1994 under which Malrite (WOIO's owner) ran WUAB, and WUAB's news department was extended to produce the newscasts for WOIO. Quite a few LMAs became actual duopolies around 2000, including that one.

[tvjay 6]

 

A JSA is a Joint Sales Agreement. In a JSA a station sells the other station's ad inventory. This can raise prices for television advertising in the market.

 

Can anyone provide examples? Doesn't Sinclair/Nexstart/Raycom use SSAs?

[Samantha 2878]

 

Can anyone provide examples? Doesn't Sinclair/Nexstart/Raycom use SSAs?

 

They're almost always in tandem with JSAs. You'll see "SSA/JSA" often on here.

 

EDIT: You can also read this excellent FCC blog post from today that explains this better than I do, also covering the loan guarantees and consolidated financials that are the third pillar of sidecars.

[sanewsguy 509]

 

I don't mind it if an owner has 2 stations in a market, but some people abuse the living daylights out of it to the point that one company owns the ABC, NBC, and My Network TV affiliates, and another independent station in the same exact market.

 

I think they should limit it somewhat but an outright ban seems a little extreme.

 

Agreed completely. Nexstar and Sinclair are the perfect analogies. Nexstar's use of it makes total sense for the most part (disagree with them wanting WEVV), but Sinclair does abuse it to control more stations for corporate greed and having more venues to use as his soapbox.

 

 

Damage or promote small business investment? I would rather see the big guys disappear and a collection of little guys spring up.

 

I see where you're coming from but I disagree. Smaller companies springing up and trying to run stations won't be good, because the smaller companies don't generally have deep pockets, so you get a poor quality product versus going into a larger market and seeing a much more professionally produced and higher quality product. They will go out of business faster because they don't have the cash to compete. What I'm trying to get at, is that the smaller companies don't generally invest in their stations while the larger ones do (this is debatable but it is a generalization).

 

KFMB is a great example. They are cheaply run and the chain owned stations generally put out a better product than them.

 

I go to smaller markets and am glad to return here or Austin, because the newscasts are more professional than in smaller cities where smaller groups own stations, and therefore do not invest much into the product. Also keep in mind these are usually starter markets where recent college grads generally start off.

 

Corporate ownership is good for the stations and beneficial to the public interest. They will give local entities airtime, you just need the cash to buy the time, because the equipment to put the signal out is not free and needs to be paid for somehow.

[mre29 1340]

 

Damage or promote small business investment? I would rather see the big guys disappear and a collection of little guys spring up.

 

So you want to see companies such as Hearst, LIN, Scripps, and Media General disappear?

 

Just wondering.

[ChesapeakeTV 310]

And here I thought American television was heading towards the Canadian model.

 

Time to exhale.

[tyrannical bastard 3464]

If this is pushed through by the FCC, most likely the Boys in Baltimore have a card up their sleeve called Chesapeake Television...by divesting majority interest in this company, you have ANOTHER company to run a set of duopolies in a market. Limit the SSA to only producing newscasts, (and other select programming) and those usually fly below the 15% programming standard that most SSAs/JSAs are structured around. Let the other company own the stuff, employees, and run the station itself. In essence, Sinclair could skirt the rules by turning into a "syndicator" that strikes a deal to syndicate their content to the Chesapeake stations. The licensee controls the rest, as dictated by FCC rules.

 

Broadcasting has turned into one of those "too big to fail" industries. With all the centralization, sharing and hubbing taking place, what small entity can take up a bunch of stations and try to run them as smaller pieces? Same can be said for cable and satellite TV.

[Samantha 2878]

 

If this is pushed through by the FCC, most likely the Boys in Baltimore have a card up their sleeve called Chesapeake Television...by divesting majority interest in this company, you have ANOTHER company to run a set of duopolies in a market. Limit the SSA to only producing newscasts, (and other select programming) and those usually fly below the 15% programming standard that most SSAs/JSAs are structured around. Let the other company own the stuff, employees, and run the station itself. In essence, Sinclair could skirt the rules by turning into a "syndicator" that strikes a deal to syndicate their content to the Chesapeake stations. The licensee controls the rest, as dictated by FCC rules.

 

Broadcasting has turned into one of those "too big to fail" industries. With all the centralization, sharing and hubbing taking place, what small entity can take up a bunch of stations and try to run them as smaller pieces? Same can be said for cable and satellite TV.

 

I don't even think Chesapeake is an actual business entity, more an internal division.

[sanewsguy 509]

 

If this is pushed through by the FCC, most likely the Boys in Baltimore have a card up their sleeve called Chesapeake Television...by divesting majority interest in this company, you have ANOTHER company to run a set of duopolies in a market. Limit the SSA to only producing newscasts, (and other select programming) and those usually fly below the 15% programming standard that most SSAs/JSAs are structured around. Let the other company own the stuff, employees, and run the station itself. In essence, Sinclair could skirt the rules by turning into a "syndicator" that strikes a deal to syndicate their content to the Chesapeake stations. The licensee controls the rest, as dictated by FCC rules.

 

Broadcasting has turned into one of those "too big to fail" industries. With all the centralization, sharing and hubbing taking place, what small entity can take up a bunch of stations and try to run them as smaller pieces? Same can be said for cable and satellite TV.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

 

I don't even think Chesapeake is an actual business entity, more an internal division.

 

Yeah but he's saying that it can be spun off into a legally separate entity if need be.

 

 

And here I thought American television was heading towards the Canadian model.

 

Time to exhale.

 

I actually don't mind the Canadian model. Prefer it over the American way of things...

[lugnuts6 89]

Here in Lansing/Jackson we have a News Share Agreement {sort of like a JSA] between Gray Communications WILX (NBC) which produces the Newscast of Journal Broadcasting's WSYM (FOX) since 2004

Also there is a JSA : Media General's WLNS (CBS) W/ Spartan TV (Venture Technologies) WHTV 18 Jackson

and a JSA/SSA with Smith media's WLAJ ABC 53 & CW5 Lansing

 

What Happens to them SHOULD the FCC institute the JSA/SSA ban

[A3N 996]

 

Agreed completely. Nexstar and Sinclair are the perfect analogies. Nexstar's use of it makes total sense for the most part (disagree with them wanting WEVV), but Sinclair does abuse it to control more stations for corporate greed and having more venues to use as his soapbox.

 

I see where you're coming from but I disagree. Smaller companies springing up and trying to run stations won't be good, because the smaller companies don't generally have deep pockets, so you get a poor quality product versus going into a larger market and seeing a much more professionally produced and higher quality product. They will go out of business faster because they don't have the cash to compete. What I'm trying to get at, is that the smaller companies don't generally invest in their stations while the larger ones do (this is debatable but it is a generalization).

 

KFMB is a great example. They are cheaply run and the chain owned stations generally put out a better product than them.

 

I go to smaller markets and am glad to return here or Austin, because the newscasts are more professional than in smaller cities where smaller groups own stations, and therefore do not invest much into the product. Also keep in mind these are usually starter markets where recent college grads generally start off.

 

Corporate ownership is good for the stations and beneficial to the public interest. They will give local entities airtime, you just need the cash to buy the time, because the equipment to put the signal out is not free and needs to be paid for somehow.

 

The thing is that KFMB was not this way. In the 90's-00's they throwing money left and right into the product, they had a big staff, and all the fancy new toys. The problems started coming up after they started doing the news in HD, they spent several million dollars to do the upgrades, then the economy went south. They were actually one of the last remaining stations in the market to lay people off, but when their old GM retired in 2011 or so, the new one decided to reduce expenses. Their affiliation is up for renewal in 2015, and I'd be willing to bet that they're trying to make themselves attractive to potential buyers. After all, it's the only station in the Midwest TV portfolio. I do agree that the other stations mainly KGTV and KNSD are putting out better products than KFMB, but that is because they have been heavily investing in them. At this point, it's time someone bigger took them over that can give them more to work with.

Too bad that these new rules won't affect SSA/JSA with Mexican licensed stations. Entravision runs Telemundo and Univision in San Diego, and the product they put out is crap. I've seen college newscasts put out better products. Hopefully KNSD can take in the Telemundo affiliation in-house in the near future.

[sanewsguy 509]

 

Here in Lansing/Jackson we have a News Share Agreement {sort of like a JSA] between Gray Communications WILX (NBC) which produces the Newscast of Journal Broadcasting's WSYM (FOX) since 2004

Also there is a JSA : Media General's WLNS (CBS) W/ Spartan TV (Venture Technologies) WHTV 18 Jackson

and a JSA/SSA with Smith media's WLAJ ABC 53 & CW5 Lansing

 

What Happens to them SHOULD the FCC institute the JSA/SSA ban

 

I don't think anything will happen with the WILX/WSYM arrangement. All Gray does is produce the newscast. Nothing like a JSA. Journal has much more of a say over WSYM than most other stations under a JSA/SSA do. Everything else is completely separate.

 

I think WHTV can become separate if it needs to be. Venture has run stations on their own before.

 

Who's Smith Media, isn't WLAJ a Shield station? Anyway, they should be one you can think about. I can see them being separate, since there's not much of a staff, virtually no local programming. Really just a pass through for ABC...

[Samantha 2878]

 

Here in Lansing/Jackson we have a News Share Agreement {sort of like a JSA] between Gray Communications WILX (NBC) which produces the Newscast of Journal Broadcasting's WSYM (FOX) since 2004

Also there is a JSA : Media General's WLNS (CBS) W/ Spartan TV (Venture Technologies) WHTV 18 Jackson

and a JSA/SSA with Smith media's WLAJ ABC 53 & CW5 Lansing

 

What Happens to them SHOULD the FCC institute the JSA/SSA ban

 

The WILX/WSYM news share wouldn't be affected, though certainly the WHTV and WLAJ control deals would be partially unwound. Spartan and Shield would have to sell their own ad time at least.

[The Frog 393]

Basically, the smaller stations that can't stand on their own without a JSA are spectrum auction bait. Nicely played, Wheeler.

[CircleSeven 1944]

The WILX/WSYM news share wouldn't be affected, though certainly the WHTV and WLAJ control deals would be partially unwound. Spartan and Shield would have to sell their own ad time at least.

Raymie, look at page 3 of this PDF (which was from last August), and it states that the SSA between WLNS & WHTV was going to expire at the end of the year. No word on if Venture actually ended the SSA and move to a different facility.

 

Basically, the smaller stations that can't stand on their own without a JSA are spectrum auction bait. Nicely played, Wheeler.

And most likely station's like WHTV, and other VTG stations, are proned to become speculator bate, especially since they are adjacent to Detroit. Some are saying that Wheeler is doing this to get the Broadcasters no other alternative, other than to participate in the auctions next year. If that's one of his motives, that he'll have an even tougher time trying to convince big broadcasters, who would later change their minds and might want to participate.

[Weeters 1811]

As the old saying goes, "Careful what you wish for."

 

I don't think this is going to end well. Expect to see a number of stations disappear. I don't think the companies will even bother to try to market those stations to potential buyers (other than spectrum speculators), if just out of spite or because it's not worth trying to sell a station with virtually no assets or staff.

[TVIntheDesert 183]

You know the NAB is going to produce spots to tell viewers that free viewing choices are going away if "action isn't taken," and have the stations run them for free. It's prior to full political ad spending season, so the stations should have some unsold time to place those.