Rusty Muck 4167 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Who would be willing to buy a standalone low-ranked station though? That would be nothing more than a money pit. I'll say who would. Michael Dell's OTA Broadcasting and other like speculators would swoop in for the license, as the affected station's intellectual programming would move over to a subchannel of the primary station owned by the broadcaster. This vote today, contrary to Wheeler's bluster, can be summed up in three words: Spectrum. Incentive. Auction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTVNews 1366 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The FCC will vote today on a proposal to restrict joint service agreements, seeking to limit situations where stations share facilities, and staff to lower costs. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/bc-fcc-will-put-shot-clock-on-joint-service-agreement-waivers_b118245 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The diversity exemption sounds good on paper, but is bad in that they could just hand it to a female or minority sub-owner within the same corporate organization or reorganize their own shells, while reaching the same audience. If that is the case, Sinclair could just move as many of the Cunningham or Deerfield stations as possible to Howard Stirk Holdings to claim such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewsMaster 226 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 It's official: http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/75174/fcc-blocks-joint-retrans-negotiations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 oh no, this does not sound good. The fight has just begun, Sinclair and Nexstar need to sue big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 oh no, this does not sound good. The fight has just begun, Sinclair and Nexstar need to sue big time. It's going to be a very long and drawn out process, there's no doubt those two or at least one of them is going to sue over this. As I said before, even though I gripe about how companies abuse the daylights out of those loopholes, this still seemed like an extreme measure to take. Even though I can't stand the NAB and I especially can't stand the concept behind retransmission fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3469 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 If I'm correct...this ruling only affects JSAs and retrains negotiations. Simple fix....the sales staff gets transferred to the licensee, and the licensee handles all of the sales of airtime. They already handle programming, and any "shared services" are the news department and other operational staff. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I think the impact may not be too great. Even if they sell licenses and service operations to small local third parties, in many cases there will still be newscast sharing agreements, especially in the smaller to mid-sized markets that can only support 2 or 3 news operations. The big problems are those who violate to pursue triopolies, quadropolies, etc. or try to shut down solid competitors (example in Syracuse with WSTM/WTVH, Syracuse should be able to support 3 news operations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4167 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I think the impact may not be too great. Even if they sell licenses and service operations to small local third parties, in many cases there will still be newscast sharing agreements, especially in the smaller to mid-sized markets that can only support 2 or 3 news operations. The big problems are those who violate to pursue triopolies, quadropolies, etc. or try to shut down solid competitors (example in Syracuse with WSTM/WTVH, Syracuse should be able to support 3 news operations). Do NOT be shocked to see WTVH go off the air and their intellectual unit moved to WSTM 3.3. Unfortunately, as I've said earlier on the thread, S!nclair would be more likely to shut down those de facto sister stations held in shells, move them to a subchannel of their primary signal, and have the shell unload the license to a spectrum speculator. If anything, rather than actually enforcing the laws on the books, Wheeler is to make it so that markets like Syracuse will never have three independent news departments ever again. And S!nclair has enough clout to engage in such mass consolation... if they lose any legal challenges with the FCC, expect them to take their balls and go home. Tom Wheeler took a bad situation and made it much, much worse under the veneer of "fairness." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.L. Hughes 751 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Joint sales agreements have now been restricted. And as expected, there's some mudslinging. Ironic that the two Republican commissioners who are vocal on their displeasure over the JSA ban are among the five commissioners who voted to disallow retrans coordination between broadcasters in a landslide. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/202189-divided-fcc-cracks-down-on-broadcasters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOMatrix 1295 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 With this JSA ban now in place, will this mean that LMAs will have to be unraveled or will they be grandfathered under this new plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 A typical signal can hold two channels in high-definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOMatrix 1295 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 A typical signal can hold two channels in high-definition? It can but usually the picture is degraded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.L. Hughes 751 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Do NOT be shocked to see WTVH go off the air and their intellectual unit moved to WSTM 3.3. Unfortunately, as I've said earlier on the thread, S!nclair would be more likely to shut down those de facto sister stations held in shells, move them to a subchannel of their primary signal, and have the shell unload the license to a spectrum speculator. If anything, rather than actually enforcing the laws on the books, Wheeler is to make it so that markets like Syracuse will never have three independent news departments ever again. And S!nclair has enough clout to engage in such mass consolation... if they lose any legal challenges with the FCC, expect them to take their balls and go home. Tom Wheeler took a bad situation and made it much, much worse under the veneer of "fairness." If broadcasters would merge one station's programming into another, that would create new problems. They might run into some trouble with the FCC, sure there is an incentive auction, but we don't know whether they want major network affiliates for this. Especially considering that stations that have been bought by spectrum speculators have leaned more toward owning smaller networks like Estrella TV and the sort, only two "Big Four" affiliate have been sold to these speculators thus far. Rather than assume that the FCC is trying to force broadcasters into participating in the acution, you should question that the Commission is actually trying to ensure diverse ownership (and by that, I mean, allowing for other broadcasters, large and small groups or single station owners to enter into an M&A market that is now dominated by about ten larger owners or giving leverage for smaller owners to try and add stations to their portfolios). Keep in mind that JSAs are already attributed to ownership caps with radio stations, I not really sure that this will be the end of broadcasting as we know it if the rules state you have to operate a station you own. If broadcasters chose to shut down stations instead of selling them, that may be just to get back at the FCC, and the broadcasters who do it out of spite will pay the cost. Also, broadcasters who own digital multicast networks would have serious issues with broadcasters folding stations into a subchannel since it would consume bandwith with how the ATSC standard is technologically formatted currently. They have enough problems with options in entering markets being limited in certain areas where Meredith and Nexstar own stations. Let's say that a company owns one station and operates two more. If the broadcaster that had to unwind the JSA opted to turn in the license, and fold the two stations into two subchannels, the multicast network has a tougher time getting clearance in that market (especially if the market has fewer than six stations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easttxtv 7 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'm guessing this will delay deals like the Nexstar-Mission/ComCorp-White Knight one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4167 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 A typical signal can hold two channels in high-definition? KBMT in Beaumont has ABC on 12.1, NBC (dubbed K-JAC, a nod to the market's past NBC affiliate) on 12.2, and Cozi on 12.3, all of which are in 720p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewsMaster 226 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 With this JSA ban now in place, will this mean that LMAs will have to be unraveled or will they be grandfathered under this new plan. I am not sure. If you're talking about, for instance, the WSYX / WTTE duop in Columbus, I'm guessing that will have to be unraveled. That's a good question, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4167 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 With this JSA ban now in place, will this mean that LMAs will have to be unraveled or will they be grandfathered under this new plan. With all the legal action that is obviously going to take place, any change might not occur for years until their hand is forced. A mega group like S!nclair is not going to give up these shell JSAs voluntarily. I am not sure. If you're talking about, for instance, the WSYX / WTTE duop in Columbus, I'm guessing that will have to be unraveled. That's a good question, though. One would think that WWHO would be targeted first, and then WTTE. But the problem with WWHO is that their transmitter is so far away from the city proper (in the tiny town of Williamsport, due to it holding a Chillicothe COL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 A typical signal can hold two channels in high-definition? Sure there are plenty of examples. Trip over at Rabbitears.info keeps a good list of all the stations running "dual hd." Plus, don't forget about the KJLA/KLCS channel sharing test in LA that's another example. If broadcasters would merge one station's programming into another, that would create new problems. They might run into some trouble with the FCC, sure there is an incentive auction, but we don't know whether they want major network affiliates for this. Especially considering that stations that have been bought by spectrum speculators have leaned more toward owning smaller networks like Estrella TV and the sort, only two "Big Four" affiliate have been sold to these speculators thus far. Rather than assume that the FCC is trying to force broadcasters into participating in the acution, you should question that the Commission is actually trying to ensure diverse ownership (and by that, I mean, allowing for other broadcasters, large and small groups or single station owners to enter into an M&A market that is now dominated by about ten larger owners or giving leverage for smaller owners to try and add stations to their portfolios). Keep in mind that JSAs are already attributed to ownership caps with radio stations, I not really sure that this will be the end of broadcasting as we know it if the rules state you have to operate a station you own. If broadcasters chose to shut down stations instead of selling them, that may be just to get back at the FCC, and the broadcasters who do it out of spite will pay the cost. Also, broadcasters who own digital multicast networks would have serious issues with broadcasters folding stations into a subchannel since it would consume bandwith with how the ATSC standard is technologically formatted currently. They have enough problems with options in entering markets being limited in certain areas where Meredith and Nexstar own stations. Let's say that a company owns one station and operates two more. If the broadcaster that had to unwind the JSA opted to turn in the license, and fold the two stations into two subchannels, the multicast network has a tougher time getting clearance in that market (especially if the market has fewer than six stations). The FCC doesn't/won't care what licenses get surrendered in the incentive auction. The speculators have mostly bought those stations with "small network" affiliations because the value of those stations is much lower so, they can be had much cheaper. The value of the license once turned in for the auction is the same whether it's a "major network" affiliate or a "smaller network" affiliate. Buy low, Sell high. Are there scores of groups/individuals lining up to enter the TV industry I'm unaware of? It's not a growth industry and you need to have scale. You'd have to love the business and not mind possibly never seeing a ROI. Good luck getting a bank to sign off on that business plan. And, just for good measure the FCC took away a vehicle by which to legitimately outsource some of your operations. Well let's see...They refused to negotiate JSA's as part of the ownership review. Even though they are supposed to preform one this year. And, they haven't completed their 2010 review but, they were nice enough to combine the 2010 & 2014 reviews since 48 months wasn't enough. Then they eliminated the ability to due joint retransmission consent in a lot of cases which does nothing to promote diversity in ownership...but, would devalue a station. All with next to no debate as there minds were already made up. And, what's this crap with doing away with Syndex/Network non-duplication? So, It's pretty hard not to think the FCC (or, some members of) are trying to knock broadcasters down a peg. Thereby, "indirectly" influencing there participation in the auction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 719 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 The WTTE situation is the exact same, it's not different from WYTV like you're trying to make it sound. WYTV would have to renovate the building again so it's suitable for occupying. Then they would have to rehire a brand new news team, buy new equipment, etc. Not quite. I thought they were going to regulate JSA's. WTTE is a grandfathered LMA. It might be a distinction without substance, but it is what it is. With all the legal action that is obviously going to take place, any change might not occur for years until their hand is forced. A mega group like S!nclair is not going to give up these shell JSAs voluntarily. One would think that WWHO would be targeted first, and then WTTE. But the problem with WWHO is that their transmitter is so far away from the city proper (in the tiny town of Williamsport, due to it holding a Chillicothe COL). Nope. Sinclair has filed an application to move the stick over to the Channel 6 tower, a two pronged candelabra holding four sticks. I believe the application calls for removal of the old WTTE analog antenna (which is on top of the WTTE digital antenna) and replacing it with the WWHO antenna on the western antenna mount. The WSYX UHF 48 antenna sits on top of the old WSYX VHF 13 antenna on the easternmost antenna, where the WSYX VHF 6 analog antenna used to be. I looked at the application, and their pattern covers the Chillicothe COL from the Columbus tower location. Speaking of which, wouldn't it be ironic if Media General ends up with WWHO, since WWHO was last owned by LIN? EDIT: And since WCMH/WWHO were one of the first, if not the first, duopolies? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jvQiHTWw4o Anyway, with 80% cable penetration, hundreds of channels on cable, and programming consisting of a lot of syndicated crap during the day, this is all much ado about nothing. This reminds me of people who pine for the days when there were several downtown department stores. Time has passed the FCC by on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.L. Hughes 751 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Not quite. I thought they were going to regulate JSA's. WTTE is a grandfathered LMA. It might be a distinction without substance, but it is what it is. Monday's ruling was on JSAs. Joint sales agreements involve the contracting of advertising sales. But you're right about it being a "distinction without substance", some are treated in the same manner as shared services agreements and local marketing agreements, making the distinction between the three terms a bit confusing in some instances, moreso with an LMA and an SSA, whose structural differences are rather... ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1944 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 TVNewsCheck states today that Journal has stated that it would be willing to buy TV stations that would end up being sold because of the new JSA attribution regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country News 435 Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 TVNewsCheck states today that Journal has stated that it would be willing to buy TV stations that would end up being sold because of the new JSA attribution regulations. Which begs the question of why they sold KMIR and KPSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1944 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Because Speculators are buying stations left and right, even in markets that are adjacent to the larger markets (Palm Springs is adjacent to LA), and I guess Journal took an offer they didn't refuse. Trust me, I'm highly against these speculators acquiring these stations only to see it go post-auction & repacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1944 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 From the B&C tonight, the NAB is calling out on the FCC about their new Media Bureau "Guidance" from their March 12 notice on how they would review TV stations transfer & assignment applications with sharing arrangements and contingent financial interest. The article also states that the NAB might explore some options to pursue legal action if the FCC doesn't rescind their new "guidance" review by next week (May 8). EDIT 5/2: Harry Jessell from TVNewsCheck didn't waste anytime posting the NAB letter news today, and he made this topic his weekly editorial, stating that he's thrilled on the NAB's latest stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.