Rusty Muck 4168 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Wrong Wheeler was wrong getting rid of the discount the FCC is righting that wrong by returning the discount which the chairmen has every right to do. Wheeler had no right to get rid the discount since he always favored Free Press while chairmen was paid off by Free Press to get rid of the discount that is cronyism by Wheeler. At least Pai has been a good chairmen getting rid of Wheelers cronyism & payoffs at the FCC he does it the right way. Wanna bet that Atji Paid Off will use this as his defense in court? There exists no logical explanation for reinstituting a rule that was rendered completely and utterly obsolete IN FUCKING 2009. Also note that conservatives are the master of disinformation and projection. This "cronyism and payoffs" in truth applies to Paid Off, not Wheeler. Pay attention to the lies they spew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megatron81 181 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Wanna bet that Atji Paid Off will use this as his defense in court? There exists no logical explanation for reinstituting a rule that was rendered completely and utterly obsolete IN FUCKING 2009. Also note that conservatives are the master of disinformation and projection. This "cronyism and payoffs" in truth applies to Paid Off, not Wheeler. Pay attention to the lies they spew. Nope the masters of disinformation and projection are liberals with there cronyism and the lies they spew. Discount isn't obsolete it should never gone away Wheeler was wrong and why he got sued by NAB, CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC since they all wanted UHF discount to stay. Pai righted the wrong and is right about why a longer stay shouldn't be granted along with NAB as well to courts unlike Free Press which there claims are without merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOMatrix 1295 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Nope the masters of disinformation and projection are liberals with there cronyism and the lies they spew. Discount isn't obsolete it should never gone away Wheeler was wrong and why he got sued by NAB, CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC since they all wanted UHF discount to stay. Pai righted the wrong and is right about why a longer stay shouldn't be granted along with NAB as well to courts unlike Free Press which there claims are without merit. The Free Press' claims DO have merit. Groups like Sinclair and Nexstar have exploited the discount since the majority of stations are on the UHF band. Wheeler tried to combat them by eliminating it altogether, only to have lap-dog Pai reinstate it to help Sinclair, aka Trumpy's second mouthpiece.* *I am a political moderate but I still hold Sinclair in low regard, due to its perpetual cheapness, its bias, and the fact that they went on all these buying sprees while still somehow keeping some of its current stations in said cheapness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 ... help Sinclair, aka Trumpy's second mouthpiece.* *I am a political moderate but I still hold Sinclair in low regard, due to its perpetual cheapness, its bias, and the fact that they went on all these buying sprees while still somehow keeping some of its current stations in said cheapness. You get a "like" for the disclaimer. A good disclaimer is hard to find in today's cruel world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Alright, I've had this fable in my head... Once upon a time, there was a world of two kinds of apples. There weren't as many red apples, but they were highly prized and sought after. Aside from a few places where red apples couldn't grow, however, green apples, despite being more common, were kinda tart and just didn't sell. So the government decided that they should subsidize the costs of green apples to make them more attractive to buyers, first by letting buyers acquire more green apples when they couldn't have more red apples, and later by making green apples 50 percent cheaper. Suddenly, however, growing climates changed. In many areas where red apples grew, green apples that were just as sweet grew instead. The government understandably decided that with fewer red and more green apples, it would no longer subsidize the costs of green apple farming. It even considered discounting the prices of red apples! Now we have a government that wants to restore the discount for the sole purpose of letting the same few people buy more apples, not to benefit farmers of red or green apples. A lot of apples will rot if they do that and less care will go into each apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowBergen 486 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Wrong Wheeler was wrong getting rid of the discount the FCC is righting that wrong by returning the discount which the chairmen has every right to do. Wheeler had no right to get rid the discount since he always favored Free Press while chairmen was paid off by Free Press to get rid of the discount that is cronyism by Wheeler. At least Pai has been a good chairmen getting rid of Wheelers cronyism & payoffs at the FCC he does it the right way. Sorry, I disagree. The UHF discount was obsolete. It had to do with the technical inferiority and channel position of UHF broadcasts and became irrelevant with digital broadcasting and cable/satellite penetration. This is about greed. If the FCC wants to loosen ownership rules, then they should do that in the appropriate way. This was sneaky. And it smells of pay offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1944 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 NO STAY! The D.C. Circuit has rejected the Free Press request for an "emergency" stay of FCC's April ruling of the reinstatement of the UHF Discount. And because of this, the implementation of the loophole (which was slated to happen ten days ago, before an administrative stay was issued) is now in effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadcastfan9751 136 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 NO STAY! The D.C. Circuit has rejected the Free Press request for an "emergency" stay of FCC's April ruling of the reinstatement of the UHF Discount. And because of this, the implementation of the loophole (which was slated to happen ten days ago, before an administrative stay was issued) is now in effect. And, it means Sinclair and Tribune can now file their merger applications with the FCC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfuego35 89 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 And, it means Sinclair and Tribune can now file their merger applications with the FCC. And now the iHate...err iHeartRadio of Television is born, with a high debt load. I give it 3 years before Sinclair has to file for bankruptcy as a result of the Tribune Acquisition... and that includes using some of the proceeds of the Incentive Auction, and Sale of stations in Conflict Markets as part of the purchase price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4168 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 And now the iHate...err iHeartRadio of Television is born, with a high debt load. I give it 3 years before Sinclair has to file for bankruptcy as a result of the Tribune Acquisition... and that includes using some of the proceeds of the Incentive Auction, and Sale of stations in Conflict Markets as part of the purchase price. Sinclair's level of debt pales in comparison to the debt iHeart accrued when it was taken private in 2008. Plus they have the ability to extort cable companies for higher and higher retransmission fees. They won't go bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3470 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 In the scheme of things, Sinclair is about in the same place as Clear Channel when they acquired AMFM in 1999. This maxed them out because of the regulations in place at the time. Sinclair could always be forced to go private if they are part of a leveraged buyout. Give it another decade after that and they could collapse.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 In the scheme of things, Sinclair is about in the same place as Clear Channel when they acquired AMFM in 1999. This maxed them out because of the regulations in place at the time. Sinclair could always be forced to go private if they are part of a leveraged buyout. Give it another decade after that and they could collapse.. Amazon will just be standing by to clean up the mess...with an entire cash purchase of whoever is left standing. Whole Foods was just the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megatron81 181 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 I thought the stay was going to be denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3470 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 If one of the major radio groups goes under, so will some of their stations. They were built into a "too big to fail" method with all of the centralization and consolidation so that separating them would be very expensive for a new owner should they go under. At least TV hasn't gotten to that point....yet. there are some potential factors like the elimination of the main studio rule and the networks abandoning the affiliate model that could bring broadcast TV into an eventual irrelevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 If one of the major radio groups goes under, so will some of their stations. They were built into a "too big to fail" method with all of the centralization and consolidation so that separating them would be very expensive for a new owner should they go under. At least TV hasn't gotten to that point....yet. there are some potential factors like the elimination of the main studio rule and the networks abandoning the affiliate model that could bring broadcast TV into an eventual irrelevance. Could the TV companies actually buy radio stations if iHeart or Cumulus collapses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadcastfan9751 136 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Could the TV companies actually buy radio stations if iHeart or Cumulus collapses? It could happen. Sinclair, in particular, may want to expand its radio presence in Chicago and Seattle. Other TV companies with radio stations, like Hearst and Scripps, could be interested too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 It could happen. Sinclair, in particular, may want to expand its radio presence in Chicago and Seattle. Other TV companies with radio stations, like Hearst and Scripps, could be interested too. Some of those IHM clusters are all trimmed up and lean...I would think they could be attractive prospects in a bunch of major and minor markets. You have to allow the rules to be adjusted...no whining. It could be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 Some of those IHM clusters are all trimmed up and lean...I would think they could be attractive prospects in a bunch of major and minor markets. You have to allow the rules to be adjusted...no whining. It could be a good thing. The only thing to watch for is running into trouble with the cross-ownership limitations. I believe you're only allowed 25% of the combined revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennTV1983 743 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 It could happen. Sinclair, in particular, may want to expand its radio presence in Chicago and Seattle. Other TV companies with radio stations, like Hearst and Scripps, could be interested too. Let's not forget about Cox Media as well since they operate quite a few in markets where they don't own a TV station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOMatrix 1295 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Honestly, I think that the United States might see something akin to aggregation not unlike what happened in Australia circa 1990. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRolyPoly 1847 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Let's not forget about Cox Media as well since they operate quite a few in markets where they don't own a TV station. Miami is a great example. They could've owned TV too if Cox didn't screw up WCKT early (thanks to license violations in 1962 that forced Cox to give up WCKT. That's why its in the hands of Sunbeam which became WSVN in 1983). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 One very real possibility is a bunch of radio station just go dark. No station group wants to dive back into radio after they sold it off ...unless you can get it dirt cheap. Of course expect plenty of advocacy and community groups rushing to purchase stations at discounted prices....NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Honestly, I think that the United States might see something akin to aggregation not unlike what happened in Australia circa 1990. What did Australia do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsbot 269 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 What did Australia do? This Wikipedia article summarizes the situation as well as any I've seen. The situation in Australia considering highly variable population density and a much smaller population overall makes it hard to apply to the US market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_television_in_Australia#Aggregation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 This Wikipedia article summarizes the situation as well as any I've seen. The situation in Australia considering highly variable population density and a much smaller population overall makes it hard to apply to the US market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_television_in_Australia#Aggregation Holy WallaRoo's... That is way too complicated for my pee brain to figure out...and I actually read it. Maybe I should read it a few more time to get the take on it. Thanks for the link. But I get what you are saying about the differences in population bases etc. Also politically AU would try things we(USA) would never even consider for various legal or political reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.