FCC to possibly crack down on dual affiliations

[The Frog 395]

The FCC's latest review of its ownership rules contains a couple of "tentative" findings pertaining to Big Four affiliations that could go a long way in shaping the industry and even determining how much broadcasters have to pay in reverse comp. The first would bar broadcasters from acquiring a second Big Four affiliate in a market via an affiliation swap as Tribune did in Indianapolis. The other would allow dual Big Four affiliations through the use of multicasting channels.

 

The review contains a couple of other "tentative" findings pertaining to the local ownership rules and Big Four affiliations that could go a long way in shaping the industry and even determining how much broadcasters have to pay in reverse comp.

 

The first would bar broadcasters from acquiring a second Big Four affiliate in a market via an affiliation swap.

 

For instance, if a broadcaster owns a Big Four affiliate and an independent (or Little Two [CW or MNT] affiliate) in a market, the FCC is proposing that it cannot steal away the Big Four affiliation of another station in the market, put it on the independent and operate two Big Four affiliates. The FCC tentatively decided that such a switch would be an evasion of its rules.

 

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/79031/are-dual-affiliations-a-good-idea-maybe-not/page/1

[TennTV1983 756]

The first proposal is kinda tricky, but the second one has me a bit concerned (even though it's already being done in many sub-50 and sub-100 markets, particularly in markets served by only 2-3 stations). My biggest fear is that it would give companies that own two Big 4 stations in one market an excuse to "consolidate" operations onto one multicast feed as a cost-saving measure.

[Thundershock MN 169]

This so asinine it's almost beyond comprehension. If anything they have that backwards. The "instant duopolies" (or, dual affiliation using a multicast channel) are really what has the potential to become an issue...if we aren't already well down that road now. That is much closer to "skirting" the rules than an affiliation swap is. The thing is they do have some purpose in the small markets. So, there is a bit of a balancing act to be done in defining rules surrounding "instant duopolies"...if such a thing is ever to take place. It's just that the FCC isn't likely to "crackdown" or come up with rules on "instant duopolies" because there is no incentive (pardon the pun) to do so prior to the auction. Right now "instant duopolies" are a good thing as they make more effective use of spectrum. Once, the auction is complete then they can address the growing issue of "instant duopolies". It's so disingenuous.

 

And, think about this for a moment. They use Tribune's acquisition of the CBS affiliation as an example in the article. So, sticking with that example and working under the premise that this combination of proposals are enacted as laid out in the article I present the following to you. In this mythical scenario Tribune could still obtain the CBS affiliation and place it on the multicast stream or ".2" of WIXN (or, WTTV for that matter) But, Tribune would be barred from moving the CBS affiliation to the primary stream of WTTV. Seriously, How ridiculously dumb does that sound? But, yet taken at face value that is would could happen if this proposal comes to fruition. So, how does that fix any "skirting" of ownership rules?

 

These folks at the FCC are missing the forest for the trees. I sometimes wonder where and how they come up with this crap...let alone how they think these "ideas" actually help. Thankfully this is a long way from happening if it even gets that far along.

[sanewsguy 509]

How the hell is this even legal?

[skbl17 188]

 

How the hell is this even legal?

 

It's probably not. In fact, I expect that like most other FCC activities of the last few years, this will be fought by station groups in court and the FCC will lose. That's my two cents.

 

It would be nice to see Congress pass legislation that EXPLICITLY describes, in vivid detail, what the FCC absolutely can and can't do as a federal regulatory agency; no vague sections, nothing the FCC can use to beat around the bush. The statutes the FCC uses to justify their actions are full of muddy grey areas, and they've been shot down time and time again because the courts continue to tell them, "You can't do [insert FCC action here] because you don't have the authority to do so." Of course, with the near-total paralysis of Congress at the moment, I'm not expecting anything to happen on that front for a while.

[GoldenShine9 1509]

If that passes, many markets would be without a network affiliation. The only option there would be for adjacent, separately owned larger market stations to install satellites to serve them, which would eat up local revenue dollars which are scarce indeed.

 

Take for example the Sherman-Ada (east Texoma) market. There are only two commercial stations (Lockwood's KTEN and Gray's KXII, based in separate cities no less). Yet they manage to get a whole bunch of affiliations on DT2's and DT3's. Eliminate that option, and only NBC (from Ada) and CBS (from Sherman) are available. What is to stop, say, WFAA or KOCO from installing a satellite station in that area to bring ABC to Texoma? That would destroy the two small stations - and eradicate the market - by overpowering them.

 

INSANE proposal.

[DirtyHarry 719]

 

It's probably not. In fact, I expect that like most other FCC activities of the last few years, this will be fought by station groups in court and the FCC will lose. That's my two cents.

 

It would be nice to see Congress pass legislation that EXPLICITLY describes, in vivid detail, what the FCC absolutely can and can't do as a federal regulatory agency; no vague sections, nothing the FCC can use to beat around the bush. The statutes the FCC uses to justify their actions are full of muddy grey areas, and they've been shot down time and time again because the courts continue to tell them, "You can't do [insert FCC action here] because you don't have the authority to do so." Of course, with the near-total paralysis of Congress at the moment, I'm not expecting anything to happen on that front for a while.

 

Don't kid yourself. That's just kabuki theater for all the plebes to lap up. The reality is that they are out of money and their hands are tied to do anything. There is nothing left to spend, unless you want to print more money and turn the Whopper that now costs $4.19!!!! into a $6 or $8 Whopper. Congress is simply no fun anymore when you have to prioritize spending and make choices. It's much more fun just to print and spend money.

[Thundershock MN 169]

If that passes, many markets would be without a network affiliation. The only option there would be for adjacent, separately owned larger market stations to install satellites to serve them, which would eat up local revenue dollars which are scarce indeed.

 

Take for example the Sherman-Ada (east Texoma) market. There are only two commercial stations (Lockwood's KTEN and Gray's KXII, based in separate cities no less). Yet they manage to get a whole bunch of affiliations on DT2's and DT3's. Eliminate that option, and only NBC (from Ada) and CBS (from Sherman) are available. What is to stop, say, WFAA or KOCO from installing a satellite station in that area to bring ABC to Texoma? That would destroy the two small stations - and eradicate the market - by overpowering them.

 

INSANE proposal.

Your mis-reading what is being proposed.

 

From the TVNewsCheck Article in the OP:

"The review contains a couple of other "tentative" findings pertaining to the local ownership rules and Big Four affiliations...The first would bar broadcasters from acquiring a second Big Four affiliate in a market via an affiliation swap. The FCC tentatively decided that such a switch would be an evasion of its rules."

"Elsewhere in the Perpetual Review, the FCC "tentatively declined" to regulate — that is, ban — dual Big Four affiliations in a market through the use of multicasting channels. In other words, the FCC said a single station may operate two affiliates by putting, say, CBS on one multicast channel and Fox on another."

Affiliation swaps creating a "big 4" duopoly would be banned. Using multicast channels to create a "instant duopoly" with "big 4" affiliations would still be permitted.

 

Off the top of my head I can come up with two stations that became a part of a "big 4" duopoly through an affiliation swap, WTEV and WTTV. All the others have been created by virtue of ranking outside of the top 4 stations within their market (or, a creative IP swap in the case of KGMB.) So, It's a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist.

 

As I stated in my previous post "instant duopolies" via the use of multicast channels has more potential to be used to "skirt" ownership rules. And, it appears we might potentially be heading down this road now. However, as you state and I stated in my previous post "instant duopolies" serve some purpose in smaller markets. But, yet the commission "declines" to address something that has the potential to become an "ownership skirting" issue and define some rules surrounding "instant duopolies" before they get out of hand.

 

It just shows you how out of touch the commission currently is on issues related to broadcast ownership. Or, how they choose to ignore things that could become potential issues (or, fast track rulings) related to broadcast ownership because it could serve to help the commission's initiatives elsewhere (ie: the incentive auction.) As I stated it's all so disingenuous.

[skbl17 188]

 

Don't kid yourself. That's just kabuki theater for all the plebes to lap up. The reality is that they are out of money and their hands are tied to do anything.

 

You're just proving my point: Congress can't do anything right now, hence my use of the term "near-total paralysis".

 

Now, two representatives said that they would push for a replacement for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in 2015, but I'm not confident that will happen.

[DirtyHarry 719]

I don't think the FCC has any business getting involved in these deals. HOWEVER, I think the DOJ should be involve since this sounds like more of an anti-trust matter