Gray TV acquiring Schurz

[TheRolyPoly 1847]

With that branding I wonder if WOWT will change its brand to "NBC Nebraska Omaha"?

 

Considering that WOWT and Omaha are bigger than its other stations... NOPE.

[Eat News 4738]

Considering that WOWT and Omaha are bigger than its other stations... NOPE.

 

"Little Station on the Prairie?"

[TheRolyPoly 1847]

"Little Station on the Prairie?"

 

You maybe meant the Big Station on the Prairie. WOWT in Omaha is bigger than the rest of Gray's NBC stations in Omaha. Bigger market size, bigger reach. NBC Nebraska is a brand that sounds like, belongs in Nebraska's smaller markets and therefore, it does.

 

Btw, Gray almost has a monopoly of NBC stations in Nebraska. KSNK 8 in McCook, NE is the only one since its part of KSN and is owned by Media General.

 

Long story short, no need to put NBC Nebraska on a station that's already branded as "WOWT NBC Omaha."

[Eat News 4738]

You maybe meant the Big Station on the Prairie. WOWT in Omaha is bigger than the rest of Gray's NBC stations in Omaha. Bigger market size, bigger reach. NBC Nebraska is a brand that sounds like, belongs in Nebraska's smaller markets and therefore, it does.

 

Btw, Gray almost has a monopoly of NBC stations in Nebraska. KSNK 8 in McCook, NE is the only one since its part of KSN and is owned by Media General.

 

Long story short, no need to put NBC Nebraska on a station that's already branded as "WOWT NBC Omaha."

 

Please go find us some women.

[TheRob 920]

FCC approval of re-licensing of KDUH-TV

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0516/DA-16-543A1.pdf

[compubit 670]

Updated link: (moved to 5/17 - don't ask me why...)

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0517/DA-16-543A1.pdf

 

J

[CircleSeven 1944]

Another follow-up regarding Gray's acquisition of KYES. GCI filed an "amended" petition of deny app.

 

The biggest issue that came up on this document is not just retrans. But on top of page 9, they say that Gray could move its MyNetwork channel and put a big-4 network affiliate on KYES. So they've asked the FCC to place conditions on the sale that includes the retrans issue and refrain them from moving MyNet from KYES.

 

Of course Gray & Fireweed replied back in a joint response stating in that regard (p. 14) calling it speculative.

GCI’s continued complaints that it would suffer if Gray manages to secure a Big-4 affiliation for KYES-TV are just as speculative and irrelevant as they have been every time GCI has raised this “issue.” First, Big-4 affiliations are not for sale in department stores. Gray can’t just snap its fingers and acquire one. If such an affiliation becomes available, Gray will compete for it, just as GCI probably would compete to acquire it and put it on a subchannel of its Anchorage station.

[TheRolyPoly 1847]

Another follow-up regarding Gray's acquisition of KYES. GCI filed an "amended" petition of deny app.

 

The biggest issue that came up on this document is not just retrans. But on top of page 9, they say that Gray could move its MyNetwork channel and put a big-4 network affiliate on KYES. So they've asked the FCC to place conditions on the sale that includes the retrans issue and refrain them from moving MyNet from KYES.

 

Of course Gray & Fireweed replied back in a joint response stating in that regard (p. 14) calling it speculative.

 

And they won't be able to. NBC is dominant on KTUU, CBS is a hold on KTVA, KYUR gets ABC and CW with FOX on KTBY and PBS on KAKM. Sorry KYES, you're sticking to MyTV, unless if you wanna switch to Univision since Anchorage already has Telemundo (KDMD 33.2).

[CircleSeven 1944]

The FCC conditionally granted Gray's transaction of KYES.

 

The condition is KYES cannot sign an affiliate agreement with an existing network affiliate in town, which would end up becoming a top-4 television station. And that's for a period of two years.

[mvcg66b3r 97]

The FCC conditionally granted Gray's transaction of KYES.

 

The condition is KYES cannot sign an affiliate agreement with a Big 4 network, which would end up becoming a top-4 television station. And that's for a period of two years.

 

Fixed.

[Thundershock MN 169]

Fixed.

Ummm...no that's not what the order said. CircleSeven's description of the condition is correct.

 

Here is the exact quote from the order: "We grant the application with one condition: for a period of two years post-

consummation, KYES may not enter into an agreement to obtain a network affiliation held by an existing affiliate in the market that, at the time such agreement is executed, would result in KYES becoming a top-four station in the market in terms of audience share."

 

There is nothing explicitly saying "a big 4" network affiliation agreement. It's written to reflect what the top 4 are in market at the time an affiliation agreement is executed. So, if a year from now the top 4 stations in the DMA are the CBS, ABC, NBC & CW stations then in theory KYES would at that particular time be able to acquire the FOX affiliation.

 

I'm kind of torn on this. I get they are trying to uphold the "spirit" of the top 4 rule. But, this station is being acquired via a failing station waiver. So, Should the commission really be putting barriers in the way of allowing the new licensee to improve the station's condition? For example let's just say that FOX for whatever reason wants to move from KTBY. If the affiliation moved to KYES would that be the end of the world? I mean you'd be breaking up a ABC/CW/FOX operation and likely ending up with one ABC/CW operation and one NBC/FOX operation. So, would the market be that much worse off? The application and order notes that the ABC, CBS, NBC & FOX affiliates combined to account for 69% of the local TV ad revenue. Likewise, KYES as the MNT affiliate accounts for only 3.6%. For simplicity's sake let's just say the "big 4" all bill an equal share of 17.25% and The CW is doubling the MNT affiliate with 7.2%. So would a division of 17.25% (CBS), 24.45% (ABC/CW), 34.5% (NBC/FOX)...you can tack on the 3.6% for MNT anywhere you want...be any worse than the roughly 17.25%, 41.7%, 20.85% division of the marketplace now? Also, expanding further with the example let's say FOX is unhappy and/or cannot come to terms with the current group in Anchorage. As it stands that would really leave them with GCI or Gray. So, GCI would be free to just pick up FOX for a subchannel on KTVA no problem. Likewise, what would stop Gray from picking up (or, "parking") an affiliation, like FOX on a subchannel of KTUU?

 

IDK, although well intentioned I'm not sure this condition accomplishs anything and quite frankly could have adverse effects. And, is there a major difference if something like that happens now or in two years. I mean if you are just delaying the inevitable what's the point?

 

 

Also of note the commission FCC is using a proposed rule in their 2014 Quadrennial Review to impose come up with the KYES affiliation condition. They reference the proposed rule in the KYES order and it reads"(2014 Quadrennial Review)tentatively finding that “an entity

should not be permitted to directly or indirectly own, operate, or control two television stations in the same DMA

through the execution of any agreement…involving stations in the same DMA, or any individual or entity with a cognizable interest in such stations, in which a station (the “new affiliate”) acquires the network affiliation of another station (the “previous affiliate”), if the change in network affiliations would result in the licensee of the new affiliate, or any individual or entity with a cognizable interest in the new affiliate, directly or indirectly owning, operating, or controlling two of the top-four rated television stations in the DMA at the time of the agreement” and proposing “to find any party that has control over two top-four stations in the same DMA as a result of such transactions to be in violation of the top-four prohibition and subject to enforcement action.” I'm not sure what the point of this proposed rule would be. As proposed it seems like at solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Off the top of my head I can one station in the last 10 or so years that would have been impacted by such a rule, that being WTTV. So... what's the point? I already posted my thoughts on this almost 2 years ago when rumors of this proposed rule bubbled to the surface. It's ridiculous; these people can't seem to get out of there own way. I guess on the plus side given it's part of a quadrennial review and they work at glacial pace completing them such a rule likely won't truly be enacted until 2020.

[TheRolyPoly 1847]

The FCC conditionally granted Gray's transaction of KYES.

 

The condition is KYES cannot sign an affiliate agreement with an existing network affiliate in town, which would end up becoming a top-4 television station. And that's for a period of two years.

 

Glad this mess is over. And once again, GCI loses.

[CircleSeven 1944]

Here's my theory. When GCI made that last complaint about this deal, they mentioned about Gray could end up taking another network affiliation and place it on KYES. Since Gray owns a slew of CBS affiliates, my theory was come renewal time, Gray could end up using its leverage to acquire CBS from GCI's KTVA and move it to KYES (or put it on an LP like Gray has done in other markets). I think GCI were worried more about losing CBS than Gray demanding retrans from them (even though that was their original complaint).

 

It's obvious that GCI was crying foul because Gray is the only entity that's an outsider that has the economic of scale, than telecom GCI. I don't see why they're making such an issue, because they own the CBS & NBC in Juneau (albeit those are LPs). But it does baffles me fact that the FCC granted Gray KYES via a failed waiver with a pointless condition. Gray has bought several stations via FSW without condition prior to this one. Makes me think they're taking sides. Oh I almost forgot Wheeler use to work with wireless interests in the past.

_____________________

 

Anywho, as of yesterday (6/27), Gray has wrapped up the KYES deal.