FCC Eliminates UHF Ownership Discount

[dman748 1256]

If anything, I’d be okay with the O&Os being at 78%, not some of these independent groups.

I'd cap it at 50% for the Independent station groups and 35% for the O&Os, keep the VHF Discount but eliminate the UHF Discount

[TSSZNews 1051]

Not necessarily, as the FCC could then appeal to the Supreme Court, which would probably overturn any decision to eliminate the UHF discount.

 

It buys time—in this case, probably enough time to see an administration change. All that needs to happen right now.

 

The NAB has an idea: put in a VHF discount along with the UHF discount, effectively raising the cap to 78%. This is a compromise between Sinclair and Nexstar, which want the cap completely eliminated, and the other station groups, which are OK with the 78% but want a hard 39% cap on the O&Os.

 

Isn’t like 90% of OTA on the UHF spectrum now? What a garbage idea.

[mre29 1525]

So, let me get this straight: All those station groups don't want the networks to be able to own enough stations to reach more than 39% of the country, but they're okay with Sinclair and Nexstar being able to go as far as 78%?

 

Sorry, but if Sinclair or Nexstar were to own enough affiliates of any single network to have that big a reach, they'd be the network.

[NEOMatrix 1299]

So, let me get this straight: All those station groups don't want the networks to be able to own enough stations to reach more than 39% of the country, but they're okay with Sinclair and Nexstar being able to go as far as 78%?

 

Sorry, but if Sinclair or Nexstar were to own enough affiliates of any single network to have that big a reach, they'd be the network.

Also, no more reverse compensation.

[T.L. Hughes 890]

So, let me get this straight: All those station groups don't want the networks to be able to own enough stations to reach more than 39% of the country, but they're okay with Sinclair and Nexstar being able to go as far as 78%?

 

Sorry, but if Sinclair or Nexstar were to own enough affiliates of any single network to have that big a reach, they'd be the network.

That proposal makes no sense. A common sense proposal would be keep the national cap at 39% or bump it up one percentage point (40%), drop the UHF discount and instate a VHF discount. The VHF discount would still give stations enough cap space to add additional stations and makes sense from a technological standpoint, given that VHF stations don't travel as well as UHF stations in the digital era. The entire concept also addresses the issues that Free Press and the other groups suing to overturn the UHF discount have with the national broadcast reach cap. Yes, the groups may balk at this, but antitrust-style regulations like these exist to keep companies from have companies from having too much market share.

 

The NAB's idea would easily wind up being fought in court if it were ever implemented, because of the unfairness of capping the network O&O groups while allowing the independent groups more cap space to acquire stations. These groups must not understand that the networks don't want the indies to grow too big, because it would place them at a disadvantage when it comes to reverse compensation. That has been shown to breed disputes between networks and their affiliates, and is the reason why Fox sought to acquire some of Sinclair and Tribune's Fox affiliates to begin with.

[dman748 1256]

That proposal makes no sense. A common sense proposal would be keep the national cap at 39% or bump it up one percentage point (40%), drop the UHF discount and instate a VHF discount. The VHF discount would still give stations enough cap space to add additional stations and makes sense from a technological standpoint, given that VHF stations don't travel as well as UHF stations in the digital era. The entire concept also addresses the issues that Free Press and the other groups suing to overturn the UHF discount have with the national broadcast reach cap. Yes, the groups may balk at this, but antitrust-style regulations like these exist to keep companies from have companies from having too much market share.

 

The NAB's idea would easily wind up being fought in court if it were ever implemented, because of the unfairness of capping the network O&O groups while allowing the independent groups more cap space to acquire stations. These groups must not understand that the networks don't want the indies to grow too big, because it would place them at a disadvantage when it comes to reverse compensation. That has been shown to breed disputes between networks and their affiliates, and is the reason why Fox sought to acquire some of Sinclair and Tribune's Fox affiliates to begin with.

I think a cap of anywhere from 45-50% would be a fair compromise anything above that and that's when you start running into problems (both with the courts and the networks itself, especially if you keep the cap on the O&Os as is)

[NewsMaster 226]

Judges for the Free Press v. FCC case have been selected, and according to Matt Schettenhelm, they are more likely to side with Free Press. This means that there is a good chance that the UHF discount may be killed, and it's also possible that the Sinclair-Tribune merger may be in serious trouble.

 

Keep in mind that the FCC could go to the SCOTUS should this not go their way.

 

[MEDIA=twitter]976487128803741697[/MEDIA]

[dman748 1256]

Judges for the Free Press v. FCC case have been selected, and according to Matt Schettenhelm, they are more likely to side with Free Press. This means that there is a good chance that the UHF discount may be killed, and it's also possible that the Sinclair-Tribune merger may be in serious trouble.

 

Keep in mind that the FCC could go to the SCOTUS should this not go their way.

 

[MEDIA=twitter]976487128803741697[/MEDIA]

Remember this also, when the Judges sided with the groups who opposed FCC's original efforts to deregulate in 2003 they didn't take it all the way to SCOTUS.

 

Also SCOTUS only hears a select amount of cases and if the FCC were to take it all the way to the Supreme Court it could take months before the case even gets heard and depending upon what other cases SCOTUS may have on their plate they may not want to take this case.

[NowBergen 681]

I would hope that the case gets to the motivation of the reinstatement of the discount, considering the technical basis of it hasn't applied for years with the advent of digital broadcasting and extermely high cable/satellite penetration.

[mre29 1525]

That proposal makes no sense. A common sense proposal would be keep the national cap at 39% or bump it up one percentage point (40%), drop the UHF discount and instate a VHF discount. The VHF discount would still give stations enough cap space to add additional stations and makes sense from a technological standpoint, given that VHF stations don't travel as well as UHF stations in the digital era.

 

I like this, particularly bumping the national cap to 40%. I mean, why not? When it was first moved to 39%, was there even a reason given as to why it wasn't 40%?

 

The NAB's idea would easily wind up being fought in court if it were ever implemented, because of the unfairness of capping the network O&O groups while allowing the independent groups more cap space to acquire stations.

 

Oh, the networks will be tripping over each other while filing the resulting lawsuits. Also, I'm sure most of the smaller station groups would rather not get dragged into the mess -- or have to deal with super-mega-oversized versions of Sinclair and Nexstar. (The networks wouldn't be the only companies getting screwed, I would think.)

[GoldenShine9 1513]

I like this, particularly bumping the national cap to 40%. I mean, why not? When it was first moved to 39%, was there even a reason given as to why it wasn't 40%?

 

 

 

Oh, the networks will be tripping over each other while filing the resulting lawsuits. Also, I'm sure most of the smaller station groups would rather not get dragged into the mess -- or have to deal with super-mega-oversized versions of Sinclair and Nexstar. (The networks wouldn't be the only companies getting screwed, I would think.)

 

Maybe a compromise between them of 50% or 55%?

[Samantha 2895]

I am going to put this here.

 

Changing the national ownership cap requires an act of Congress.

How likely do you think Congress is to pass any major legislation in an election year after this omnibus spending bill gets out?

[mre29 1525]

I am going to put this here.

 

Changing the national ownership cap requires an act of Congress.

How likely do you think Congress is to pass any major legislation in an election year after this omnibus spending bill gets out?

 

Bumping it up by one percentage point wouldn't, I think, qualify as major legislation.

[Rusty Muck 4374]

I am going to put this here.

 

Changing the national ownership cap requires an act of Congress.

How likely do you think Congress is to pass any major legislation in an election year after this omnibus spending bill gets out?

There's no guarantee that this Congress can't walk themselves into the third government shutdown in six months.

[dman748 1256]

I am going to put this here.

 

Changing the national ownership cap requires an act of Congress.

How likely do you think Congress is to pass any major legislation in an election year after this omnibus spending bill gets out?

Not very likely at this point, if the FCC decides to raise the cap to 78% (as what the NAB wants) Congress can sit there and go "No we're not allowing you to do that, we'll going to keep it at 39% and leave it at that!"

 

In other words, the chances of Congress raising the cap is slim to none

[CircleSeven 1955]

The court case regarding the discount is underway.

 

From Schettenhelm this morning:

[MEDIA=twitter]987303295667572736[/MEDIA]

[Eat News 4745]

The court case regarding the discount is underway.

 

From Schettenhelm this morning:

[MEDIA=twitter]987303295667572736[/MEDIA]

 

Is a decision expected today, or is this just oral arguments?

[CircleSeven 1955]

Is a decision expected today, or is this just oral arguments?

 

Oral arguments (15 mins for each side). Not sure if the three-judge panel would make their decision today or on another day.

[atlnews2 591]

Bloomberg News report on the hearing https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-20/fcc-gets-skeptical-reception-in-case-related-to-sinclair-s-deal

[dman748 1256]

Question:

 

If the courts side with Free Press, et. al. and the UHF Discount reinstatement is nullified and the courts ask the FCC to reconsider the approval of the Sinclair-Tribune merger, can the DOJ even approve the deal even if the courts ask the FCC to reconsider approving the merger and if so could those same advocacy groups take the DOJ to court and ask the DOJ to reconsider approving the merger as well?

[TennTV1983 804]

Question:

 

If the courts side with Free Press, et. al. and the UHF Discount reinstatement is nullified and the courts ask the FCC to reconsider the approval of the Sinclair-Tribune merger, can the DOJ even approve the deal even if the courts ask the FCC to reconsider approving the merger and if so could those same advocacy groups take the DOJ to court and ask the DOJ to reconsider approving the merger as well?

The merger could still go through regardless of the outcome; however, should the courts decide to strike down the UHF discount on the grounds that it was done deliberately to benefit one company over the others (even though antitrust laws are never really enforced these days), Sinclair would be forced to sell off more of its assets than intended (and not just park them into sidecars), and that by itself would prolong the process towards final approval.

[Rusty Muck 4374]

Reading the above Bloomberg article, there was one passage that almost feels entirely out of place:

Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker said she disagrees that the outcome of the case may pose a risk to the deal. The FCC has a good change of winning, Ryvicker said in a note.

 

“Even if the FCC does lose, the court cannot ‘force’ the agency to redo its approval of this deal,” Ryvicker said, adding that Sinclair can’t be forced “to unwind the transaction.”

 

The outcome should have “LITTLE TO NO IMPACT” on the merger, Ryvicker said.

This from the same article that was implying mostly the exact opposite, that the merger could be really gummed up at best.

 

Were they trying to cover all possible bases here, or did Frank Dreblin emerge as an editor at Bloomberg?

 

The merger could still go through regardless of the outcome; however, should the courts decide to strike down the UHF discount on the grounds that it was done deliberately to benefit one company over the others (even though antitrust laws are never really enforced these days), Sinclair would be forced to sell off more of its assets than intended (and not just park them into sidecars), and that by itself would prolong the process towards final approval.

This. Given that Sinclair tried to pull a fast one and shell out WGN, WPIX and KTLA... it’s as if they’ll need to choose between those three, or the rest of the group (sans whatever other divestments would be made).

[Eat News 4745]

They have to completely divest of KTLA,WGN and the sad one...not a half-assed deal....a total all out sale of all three.

 

Our (mine) insect leaders need to trust me on this.

 

SELL all 3 outright...maybe Byron will buy KTLA if you ask nice.

 

Remember the Gilligan's Island where they were gonna feed Ginger to the volcano???

[TVLurker 198]

SELL all 3 outright...maybe Byron will buy KTLA if you ask nice.

 

KTLA better go to good hands.

 

After the LA Weekly was sold to people who are destroying it piece by piece, we don't need another California institution to go away, especially KTLA.

[mre29 1525]

Based on what's been said here on TVNT about the Tribune stations, I think the only station that might actually benefit from being acquired by Sinclair is WGNO.