mvcg66b3r 97 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Could ABC Jump to a New Affiliate in Birmingham? http://ftvlive.com/todays-news/2014/6/5/could-abc-jump-to-a-new-affiliate-in-birmingham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobvick 9 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I said last week when this happened that I would not be surprised at all for ABC to end up on WUOA. This situation would probably be similar to KOMU in Columbia, MO the NBC affiliate owned by the University of Missouri. UofA has invested several million dollars into new facilities for this station and they are currently building a new set. The coverage of WUOA far exceeds that of WABM, the only bad part is WUOA brodcasts on channel 6, and has the associated problems with VHF low and digital transmission. However, the last I looked the market is 94.6% cable and DBS so perhaps ABC would not be that concerned about the station being on VHF. They might would rather be on WUOA 23 rather than relegated to channel 68 as Sinclair plans. I think it would serve Sinclair right if ABC balked at their plan and went to WUOA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 It's just rumors at this point. So take it with a grain of salt. But I still think it was pretty stupid to go forward with this plan without running it by ABC first. Because if you look at the legal documents when Sinclair first made the announcement, they said that the move would be made pending their approval. http://broadcastingcable.com/sites/default/files/public/Sinclair-Allbritton-deal.pdf Quote "In order to permit the public to continue to recieve both ABC and MyNetwork programming, as well as the syndicated news programming carried on WAMB and on WCFT/WJSU throughout the Birmingham market, Sinclair would, subject to obtaining the necessary consents from the networks and the other programmers, use the multicast capability of WABM(TV) to broadcast both the programming carried on WABM as well as the programming currently carried on WCFT/WJSU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTVNews 1367 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Why can't ABC just return to WBRC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caliwxdude 252 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Why can't ABC just return to WBRC? Just a hunch, but I'd say it's doing just fine as a Fox affiliate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess 1110 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Why can't ABC just return to WBRC? When Fox sold off WBRC, WJW, etc. to Local TV, they probably had a clause in the deal enforcing long-term affiliations for the former O&Os. That would still be in place under Raycom. (I'd imagine NBC had the same type of deal with the Outlet Four.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobvick 9 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Just a hunch, but I'd say it's doing just fine as a Fox affiliate. It is still the #1 station in the market. Now, I am sure that varies at times, but, over all, it is by far still #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobvick 9 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 It's just rumors at this point. So take it with a grain of salt. But I still think it was pretty stupid to go forward with this plan without running it by ABC first. Because if you look at the legal documents when Sinclair first made the announcement, they said that the move would be made pending their approval. http://broadcastingcable.com/sites/default/files/public/Sinclair-Allbritton-deal.pdf Quote I agree it is certainly just a rumour. It will be very interesting to see how it pans out. I find it quite interesting that WUOA is reported as being interested in the affliation. Looks like they have big plans to try and compete with the more established Birmingham stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 First, this thread really should be in Speculatron 9000. Second, the chance of this happening is next to 0%. How is this a "better" situation? So, you move your affiliation from an operation with a well established newsroom to a college training ground. How is that better? You really think ABC is that spiteful over potentially having a high VC number that they'd do such a thing. And, such action fails to take into account Sinclair holds leverage, too. Should ABC pull such a move, Sinclair could return the favor and tell them to find a new outlet in Charleston...and potentially the other cities in which they hold ABC affiliations. It's a two way street and I don't think ABC is going upset the apple cart over moving to 68. It's just rumors at this point. So take it with a grain of salt. But I still think it was pretty stupid to go forward with this plan without running it by ABC first. Because if you look at the legal documents when Sinclair first made the announcement, they said that the move would be made pending their approval. http://broadcastingcable.com/sites/default/files/public/Sinclair-Allbritton-deal.pdf Quote I really think you are reading that way to literally. It's leaglese and doesn't mean discussions haven't already taken place. They could have already had discussions and have an informal agreement they need to formalize, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess 1110 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Don't forget they don't just have the network to clear this by - they have to clear this by CBS Television Distribution, NBCUniversal, Fox, generally everyone who supplies the station's syndicated programming as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Just a hunch, but I'd say it's doing just fine as a Fox affiliate. Yeah, considering the shape that ABC as a network is currently in. I'd take Fox over ABC any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effseesee 101 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I said last week when this happened that I would not be surprised at all for ABC to end up on WUOA. This situation would probably be similar to KOMU in Columbia, MO the NBC affiliate owned by the University of Missouri. UofA has invested several million dollars into new facilities for this station and they are currently building a new set. The coverage of WUOA far exceeds that of WABM, the only bad part is WUOA brodcasts on channel 6, and has the associated problems with VHF low and digital transmission. However, the last I looked the market is 94.6% cable and DBS so perhaps ABC would not be that concerned about the station being on VHF. They might would rather be on WUOA 23 rather than relegated to channel 68 as Sinclair plans. I think it would serve Sinclair right if ABC balked at their plan and went to WUOA. So if ABC were to overlook over-the-air issues with WUOA because of the high cable/dbs penetration, why wouldn't they do the same thing with WABM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4256 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Why can't ABC just return to WBRC? When Fox sold off WBRC, WJW, etc. to Local TV, they probably had a clause in the deal enforcing long-term affiliations for the former O&Os. That would still be in place under Raycom. (I'd imagine NBC had the same type of deal with the Outlet Four.) The affiliation deals with WBRC and the other former Fox O&Os spun off to LocalTV run until 2017. So there's no way in hell that Raycom is going to cancel that deal without serious repercussions by Fox on their end. (If you recall, the Group W/CBS merger came about because Group W was ticked off over ABC's group-wide affiliation deal with Scripps and WMAR, which spurred WJZ-TV after being an ABC affiliate for 47 years. These actions are not simple, unilateral solutions but can affect markets all across the country.) Sure, WBRC **could** launch a subchannel for ABC programming, but that option is no different from what S!nclair proposed (moving the current intellectual property of WBMA+ to a subchannel of another station) and would certainly be considered a downgrade by ABC. Same thing applies for WIAT and WVTM... they aren't leaving their affiliations anytime soon, and would have to create a subchannel. And then you're stuck with S!nclair by process of elimination. I'm sorry, but there is no way that ABC is going to cancel an affiliation because people here hate S!nclair and are hoping for some magical way that the Allbritton deal gets canceled. This thread is pretty much a denial of a cold, hard reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frog 396 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Yeah, considering the shape that ABC as a network is currently in. I'd take Fox over ABC any day. Have you seen Fox's ratings lately? There's a reason why Kevin Reilly "stepped down". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4256 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Don't forget they don't just have the network to clear this by - they have to clear this by CBS Television Distribution, NBCUniversal, Fox, generally everyone who supplies the station's syndicated programming as well. It shouldn't be that much different from how NBC and CBS handled the frequency swap between WTVJ and WCIX/WFOR in 1995. All that's happening is moving the intellectual property from one frequency to another. The non-license intellectual property of WBMA+ would remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4256 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Have you seen Fox's ratings lately? There's a reason why Kevin Reilly "stepped down". Still, WBRC is locked with Fox for at least three more years. Even if WBRC and Raycom are unhappy with how the network is faring, they cannot cancel the affiliation and switch to ABC. They just can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Have you seen Fox's ratings lately? There's a reason why Kevin Reilly "stepped down". ABC isn't that much better (if at all). Plus Fox has sports while Disney doesn't believe in airing sports on ABC unless it's forced to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effseesee 101 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 The affiliation deals with WBRC and the other former Fox O&Os spun off to LocalTV run until 2017. So there's no way in hell that Raycom is going to cancel that deal without serious repercussions by Fox on their end. (If you recall, the Group W/CBS merger came about because Group W was ticked off over ABC's group-wide affiliation deal with Scripps and WMAR, which spurred WJZ-TV after being an ABC affiliate for 47 years. These actions are not simple, unilateral solutions but can affect markets all across the country.) They're also not going to cancel the current affiliation agreement because it's probably a better deal than what's currently being offered by networks to affiliates today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobvick 9 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 So if ABC were to overlook over-the-air issues with WUOA because of the high cable/dbs penetration, why wouldn't they do the same thing with WABM? Maybe they do not want to end up on ABC 68. Regardless of how it "really doesnt matter" where the channel is located, it will make a differnce on DBS. Cable can place ABC where it always has been. However, it has always been the policy of the DBS providers to put the channel on their PSIP or OTA number. So, on DirecTV and Dish Network, ABC will go from 33 (40 in the case of Dish) to 68. When people are flipping channels, generally (not always) they begin on the lowest first, 6. If ABC is relegated to that channel, they will loose viewers. Not necessarily for the network stuff, but they will loose eyeballs when viewers stop on a lower numbered channel for news or other programming throughout the day. On channel 23, it would be much more pallatable than 68. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobvick 9 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 So, you move your affiliation from an operation with a well established newsroom to a college training ground. Has Sinclair made a definite statement and commitment that they are keeping news? If they are willing to turn in licenses in markets where they have overlapping stations in their no holds barred quest to gain control of WJLA, why not have a major cost cutting move as well, just dump the news, take the ABC affiliation and stick it on 68.2. While their news is not yet on par with the other stations in the market, WUOA is in the process of making a major effort to become competitive. Also, as far as it being a college training ground, I don't see where that makes a huge difference or is necessarily a bad thing. KOMU in Columbia, MO a college owned station and "training ground" is the dominate station in that market. Granted it has been on the air since 1953 and was the first station in the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Has Sinclair made a definite statement and commitment that they are keeping news? If they are willing to turn in licenses in markets where they have overlapping stations in their no holds barred quest to gain control of WJLA, why not have a major cost cutting move as well, just dump the news, take the ABC affiliation and stick it on 68.2. While their news is not yet on par with the other stations in the market, WUOA is in the process of making a major effort to become competitive. Also, as far as it being a college training ground, I don't see where that makes a huge difference or is necessarily a bad thing. KOMU in Columbia, MO a college owned station and "training ground" is the dominate station in that market. Granted it has been on the air since 1953 and was the first station in the market. Sinclair would have to be pretty stupid if they did that. Because if they did shut down the news operation at ABC 33/40, that will just give ABC another excuse to terminate their contract and find an affiliate elsewhere. ABC doesn't want to have another KDNL on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbs4dallas 17 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I wouldn't mind ABC being on a subchannel of WBRC in Birmingham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3494 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Look no further than WGXA in Macon, GA....they "re-affiliated" with ABC (on their .2) after WPGA foolishly sent them packing. WGXA is even being sold to Sinclair, so they will acquire the expertise in running such a setup. As for the doom and gloom of losing jobs, if it does happen, it's going to be some redundant back office positions because the existing 33/40 employees in news and sales are going to be essential to keeping WABM as a major player and ABC affiliate in Birmingham and the rest of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effseesee 101 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Maybe they do not want to end up on ABC 68. Regardless of how it "really doesnt matter" where the channel is located, it will make a differnce on DBS. Cable can place ABC where it always has been. However, it has always been the policy of the DBS providers to put the channel on their PSIP or OTA number. So, on DirecTV and Dish Network, ABC will go from 33 (40 in the case of Dish) to 68. When people are flipping channels, generally (not always) they begin on the lowest first, 6. If ABC is relegated to that channel, they will loose viewers. Not necessarily for the network stuff, but they will loose eyeballs when viewers stop on a lower numbered channel for news or other programming throughout the day. On channel 23, it would be much more pallatable than 68. Hate to tell you, but as long as you pass through their programming, with limited pre-emptions, and pay your network comp, ABC doesn't care what channel it's on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 It's even tougher in Charleston, where the only options are a sub of WCBD or WCSC (2.2 or 5.2). At least in Birmingham they have WVUA/WUOA as an option. The OTA signal on VHF 6 may actually be beneficial in reaching the whole market, although it hurts coverage in the core area. Regardless, if ABC sees the bluff and jumps, that would be devastating for Sinclair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.