Jump to content

FCC Approves Sales of Allbritton to Sinclair


Breaking News

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

And now HSH wants WCFT for $50K.

 

Don't know how they'll going to get the greenlight and the license turn in is this Monday.

 

 

I was reading the transaction descripton on that application at the FCC website, and this footnote was interesting, I wonder what it means

 

 

 

"The Purchase Agreement does provide that the parties will enter into a Tower and Studio License and Services

Agreement to be executed upon closing pursuant to which STG will lease to HSH Birmingham studio space and

facilities and space on its tower as currently used by WCFT, including use of an STL, sufficient for HSH

Birmingham to transmit the WCFT signal and to comply with the Commission requirements to maintain the license.

HSH Birmingham will pay rent to STG at market rates for these facilities. The Purchase Agreement also provides

that the parties will take reasonable steps to continue carriage of the existing WCFT ABC Network programming by

MVPDs."

 

Specifically this part "The Purchase Agreement also provides that the parties will take reasonable steps to continue carriage of the existing WCFT ABC Network programming by MVPDs."

What would this transaction have to do with ABC programming if HSH is not to be involved with Sinclair? The multichannel video providers can get it from one of the translators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've brought this up God knows how many times before but, there are rules surrounding virtual channel numbers.

 

The Code of Federal Regulations (47 CFR73.682) explicitly states: "digital broadcast television (DTV) signals shall comply with the standards for such transmissions set forth in...ATSC A/65C: “ATSC Program and System Information Protocol for Terrestrial Broadcast and Cable, Revision C With Amendment No. 1 dated May 9, 2006.” The ASTC standard is very clear....you don't get to make up your Virtual Channel Number. There are two very limited exceptions. First, the ATSC standard allows for commonly owned stations with overlapping contours to be aligned under the "Major Channel Number" of one of the commonly owned stations...provided it doesn't create a PSIP conflict. For Example, Meredith aligns WSHM-LD's Virtual Channel under WFSB's "Major Channel Number" And, I have three duopolies in my market that align this way KTCA/KTCI, KSTP/KSTC and KMSP/WFTC aligning all their channels under 2, 5 and 9 respectively. The other exception is the FCC allows Virtual Channel Waivers. These are rarely granted outside of solving a PSIP conflict.

 

So, under federal code Sinclair can't map to whatever channel number they want. And, Virtual Channels 33 and 40 are gone with the WCFT/WJSU licenses. In Birmingham if they wanted to neighborhood their channels and use "common mapping" like the examples above they could map under VC numbers 21, 58 or 68 as those are commonly owned...that's it. No mapping to 33 or 40. The only VC number they can use in Charleston is 36. So, absent a wavier I question the validity of the claim that the current WMMP facility will change it's OTA virtual channel number to 4.

 

And, ABC isn't "moving" to a .2 subchannel. It's remaining on a low-power channel (WBMA-LD) with simulcast(s) being picked up on WABM (and WDBB.)

 

So, two things. 1: WBMA-LD is on RF channel 40. Now that virtual channel 40 is being surrendered (WJSU) could they not revert to "ownership" of using virtual channel 40? Would they be allowed to use 40 via PSIP for a feed from WABM since they own both? Does WBMA's low power status impact any possibilities there? Could they, at the absolute very least, move WBMA's 58.x mux to use it's RF channel number in PSIP? Let's say someone applies to the FCC for a brand new license at VHF channel 9 (WJSU's RF channel), do they get to use virtual channel 40? If not that seems like Sinclair should get to use 40 in PSIP however they want.

 

and 2: Yes, the "real" affiliate is WBMA, but I'm sure ABC and everyone else is not dumb enough to think that actually makes up for being on sub-channels of a My Network TV affiliate. I have to think that at some point something major will happen and things will get reshuffled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll break this up and try to answer each question on it's own.

 

 

So, two things. 1: WBMA-LD is on RF channel 40. Now that virtual channel 40 is being surrendered (WJSU) could they not revert to "ownership" of using virtual channel 40?

No. A station that had an NTSC (analog) license prior to signing on an ATSC (digital) license must map to their NTSC (analog) channel number. So, WBMA was on RF58 on NTSC (analog). Therefore, WBMA must map to VC 58 on ATSC (digital)*.

 

 

Would they be allowed to use 40 via PSIP for a feed from WABM since they own both?

No. VC 40 disappeared with the WJSU license.

 

 

Does WBMA's low power status impact any possibilities there?

No, not at all.

 

 

Could they, at the absolute very least, move WBMA's 58.x mux to use it's RF channel number in PSIP?

If I'm understanding you correctly, Yes*. Myron Falwell brought this up in this thread or the other WJSU/WCFT thread on the general TV board. But, they could map the WABM feed to "58.3" and "58.4" or whatever provided they have proper TOH IDs. For example, the feed from WABM should ID at TOH with "WABM, Birmingham bringing you WBMA-LD, Birmingham." But, they should already be doing that.

 

Let's say someone applies to the FCC for a brand new license at VHF channel 9 (WJSU's RF channel), do they get to use virtual channel 40?

No. If the FCC issues a new license for RF9 then the VC for the new license would be 9, provided that doing so doesn't create a conflict. For example, if a new ATSC (digital) licensee is assigned an old NTSC (analog) licensee's RF channel the new licensee must use the ATSC RF channel of the old licensee as it's VC number. So, let's pretend for a moment and say that the FCC issues a new license for RF21. The new licensee can't use 21 as it's VC number due to WTTO. So, the new licensee would have to use WTTO's RF channel 28 for it's virtual channel number provided again doing so doesn't create a conflict.

 

 

If not that seems like Sinclair should get to use 40 in PSIP however they want.

The VC numbers don't belong to the station owners. They are tied to the license and, the FCC has specific rules regarding there use

 

*There are a few limited exceptions to the PISP rules.

1. As pointed out in my previous post Commonly owned stations can map under a common VC number.

2. I haven't explicitly mentioned this yet. And, It kind of goes hand in hand with #1 above. But, a licensee can map programming originating from another licensee within their multicast to the original licensee's VC number provided no conflict is created.

3. Lastly, as mentioned the FCC has a waiver process. This is pretty much reserved for instances where a PSIP conflict can not be resolved

 

 

Hopefully, that answered everything thoroughly without getting too long winded.

 

 

and 2: Yes, the "real" affiliate is WBMA, but I'm sure ABC and everyone else is not dumb enough to think that actually makes up for being on sub-channels of a My Network TV affiliate. I have to think that at some point something major will happen and things will get reshuffled.

I agree. I tend to think the current arrangement is a "interm" solution. I think some of that is due to the limited amount of time in which everything had to take place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No. A station that had an NTSC (analog) license prior to signing on an ATSC (digital) license must map to their NTSC (analog) channel number. So, WBMA was on RF58 on NTSC (analog). Therefore, WBMA must map to VC 58 on ATSC (digital)*.

 

 

 

What about KAIL in Fresno? It used to be channel 53, but, it broadcasts on channel 7, and its PSIP virtual channel number is 7.1. There are a few others, but this was one I could remember off the top of my head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What about KAIL in Fresno? It used to be channel 53, but, it broadcasts on channel 7, and its PSIP virtual channel number is 7.1. There are a few others, but this was one I could remember off the top of my head.

 

I'm not 100% sure on KAIL. They fall into one of two groups either they have a waiver from the FCC or they are thumbing their nose at the FCC rules. I've heard they have a waiver but, have never been able to find it. So, I'm guessing they fall in the latter group.

 

How can that be you might ask? Well, like most FCC rules there are always a few "outlaws". You'll find licensees that don't shut off their daytime-only station. Licensees that don't operate at the correct power. Licensees that don't have files available for inspection...and, on and on. And, the FCC takes a lackadaisical approach to enforcement at times. So, some licensees choose to operate in violation of all sorts of rules and hope the FCC either doesn't notice and/or doesn't care. The virtual channel rules are no different. There are a handful of stations that choose to operate outside the rules like WBOC for example. They are rolling the dice that nobody complains. If that happens they'll likely end up with a fine and order to map correctly. And, If the incentive auction is successful they'll have conundrum on their hands when they are likely forced to relocate RF channels as part of the repack post auction.

 

Anyway, as I said It's possible KAIL has a waiver. But, I've never found a request or waiver granted. For Example, here is WDFL-LD's request to move from VC 48 to VC 18 due to PSIP conflicts and, the FCC's granting of the waiver. The request from WBND-LD & WMYS-LD to swap virtual channels between their facilities is the only example of a wavier being granted by the FCC outside of a PSIP conflict that I know of.

 

Anyway, I think I've bored everyone to tears with the ins and outs of Virtual Channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anyway, I think I've bored everyone to tears with the ins and outs of Virtual Channels.

 

Actually, I really appreciate the response, I learned a lot.

 

This will be my last question on the topic: the rules notwithstanding, I wonder if the FCC would grant Sinclair the ability to use virtual channel 40, whether it be on WBMA or WABM (side note: how prescient was it to pick call letters that were an anagram of WABM), since the chance of a brand new digital television license being issued is extremely low, and even if it were to ever happen it they would only ever get VC 40 if they were assigned RF 58. Or would this not be a "special enough" situation to grant a waiver?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sure on KAIL. They fall into one of two groups either they have a waiver from the FCC or they are thumbing their nose at the FCC rules. I've heard they have a waiver but, have never been able to find it. So, I'm guessing they fall in the latter group.

 

How can that be you might ask? Well, like most FCC rules there are always a few "outlaws". You'll find licensees that don't shut off their daytime-only station. Licensees that don't operate at the correct power. Licensees that don't have files available for inspection...and, on and on. And, the FCC takes a lackadaisical approach to enforcement at times. So, some licensees choose to operate in violation of all sorts of rules and hope the FCC either doesn't notice and/or doesn't care. The virtual channel rules are no different. There are a handful of stations that choose to operate outside the rules like WBOC for example. They are rolling the dice that nobody complains. If that happens they'll likely end up with a fine and order to map correctly. And, If the incentive auction is successful they'll have conundrum on their hands when they are likely forced to relocate RF channels as part of the repack post auction.

 

Anyway, as I said It's possible KAIL has a waiver. But, I've never found a request or waiver granted. For Example, here is WDFL-LD's request to move from VC 48 to VC 18 due to PSIP conflicts and, the FCC's granting of the waiver. The request from WBND-LD & WMYS-LD to swap virtual channels between their facilities is the only example of a wavier being granted by the FCC outside of a PSIP conflict that I know of.

 

Anyway, I think I've bored everyone to tears with the ins and outs of Virtual Channels.

I take it you are referring to WBOC channel 16.1 CBS 16.2 Antenna TV and 21.2 Fox (out of the blue).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, I really appreciate the response, I learned a lot.

 

This will be my last question on the topic: the rules notwithstanding, I wonder if the FCC would grant Sinclair the ability to use virtual channel 40, whether it be on WBMA or WABM (side note: how prescient was it to pick call letters that were an anagram of WABM), since the chance of a brand new digital television license being issued is extremely low, and even if it were to ever happen it they would only ever get VC 40 if they were assigned RF 58. Or would this not be a "special enough" situation to grant a waiver?

 

You have kind of have two things going on here with your question. At least that is how I'm reading it.

 

First, you are correct in that the one of the only ways a Virtual Channel 40 would be assigned is if a license for RF58 is issued. However, RF58 no longer falls within the UHF TV band. RF Channels 52-69 were eliminated from the UHF TV band with the DTV transition. The 700 MHz band (Channels 52-69) was auctioned off and is now in use by wireless carriers. So, barring the invention and use of a Wayback Machine such an event can not happen. :cool:

 

As to the rest of the question at hand. IMO the FCC wouldn't likely grant a waiver. Sure, it's a "unique situation" but, there is no conflict to resolve. And, the FCC isn't going to start granting waivers just so licensees can effectively skirt the ownership rules as that would open Pandora's Box. For example, there is a reason KFVE & KGMB didn't keep their virtual channel numbers when they swapped programming/call letters...they would have been told to get lost if they applied for a waiver. Nor, are they going to start down a road where licensees can start dictate what virtual channel they want to be on. Plus, If they were to reassign VC 40 to WBMA or WABM that could still cause confusion with current viewers of those channels. The FCC has chosen to make granting virtual channel waivers a rare occurrence.

 

 

 

I take it you are referring to WBOC channel 16.1 CBS 16.2 Antenna TV and 21.2 Fox (out of the blue).

 

Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you mean a WABAC Machine :p

 

More to the point, it seems like Sinclair wouldn't have gotten themselves into this mess if they hadn't tried to shop around weakling stations like WABM and WMMP. I know they're Sinclair and they love to dance around the rules, but they really should have ditched WCIV and maybe WTTO/WDBB (more attractive duopoly bait), if not WBMA/WCFT/WJSU. There would have been more interest in any of those than in WABM or WMMP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you mean a WABAC Machine :p

 

More to the point, it seems like Sinclair wouldn't have gotten themselves into this mess if they hadn't tried to shop around weakling stations like WABM and WMMP. I know they're Sinclair and they love to dance around the rules, but they really should have ditched WCIV and maybe WTTO/WDBB (more attractive duopoly bait), if not WBMA/WCFT/WJSU. There would have been more interest in any of those than in WABM or WMMP.

 

I think if they had really wanted to keep the Allbrittion stations, they could have shopped around their existing duopolys like you said. That makes a lot more sense than trying to sell just one station, that really needs a partner to be effective. Like WABM or WMMP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you mean a WABAC Machine :p

 

More to the point, it seems like Sinclair wouldn't have gotten themselves into this mess if they hadn't tried to shop around weakling stations like WABM and WMMP. I know they're Sinclair and they love to dance around the rules, but they really should have ditched WCIV and maybe WTTO/WDBB (more attractive duopoly bait), if not WBMA/WCFT/WJSU. There would have been more interest in any of those than in WABM or WMMP.

 

What mess is that? Sinclair had a choice and opted to keep their existing signal in Charleston, while also keeping the programming, network affiliation, branding and the call letters. The WMMP signal has a higer ERP than WCIV. The only thing they lost is their virtual channel 4.designation.

 

Okay, so now they decided to sell the signal of the former WCIV to a friendly party to squat on the signal. Big deal.

 

They have the programming, the talent and the personalities. They have an existing news operation in place. They wanted those assets.

 

 

 

 

I know they're Sinclair and they love to dance around the rules, but they really should have ditched WCIV and maybe WTTO/WDBB (more attractive duopoly bait), if not WBMA/WCFT/WJSU. There would have been more interest in any of those than in WABM or WMMP.

 

 

Why would they care if WMMP or WTTO sold or not? MyTV and CW stations have minimal value, maybe $5 million or so. While $5 million is a lot to you and me, it isn't that much to Sinclair. Plus, they might even get a big writedown that helps them for tax purposes because if they paid $100 million for WCIV and now have to sh!tcan the station for $50,000 that means they lost $99,950,000 ......... while keeping the important asset, which is the programming and affiliation.

 

Likewise with WJSU/WCFT. They kept the important assets all they did was abandon one channel and sell the other. On paper, it's a loss. But not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you mean a WABAC Machine :p

 

More to the point, it seems like Sinclair wouldn't have gotten themselves into this mess if they hadn't tried to shop around weakling stations like WABM and WMMP. I know they're Sinclair and they love to dance around the rules, but they really should have ditched WCIV and maybe WTTO/WDBB (more attractive duopoly bait), if not WBMA/WCFT/WJSU. There would have been more interest in any of those than in WABM or WMMP.

 

Really to tell you the truth, the real villan is the FCC itself and the corrupt bought and paid for by big cable and wireless commissioner that we now have, Wheeler. The FCC should just have given Sinclair a waiver for WJSU/WCFT and WCIV and everything could have stayed as it was. Not that Sinclair is an angel by any means, but I don't think they are any bit more corrupt than the current lot at the FCC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Really to tell you the truth, the real villan is the FCC itself and the corrupt bought and paid for by big cable and wireless commissioner that we now have, Wheeler. The FCC should just have given Sinclair a waiver for WJSU/WCFT and WCIV and everything could have stayed as it was. Not that Sinclair is an angel by any means, but I don't think they are any bit more corrupt than the current lot at the FCC.

 

I think they should've gone in the other direction. The FCC didn't really accomplish anything by allowing them to buy the operations of ABC33/40. With ATSC, the transmitter and frequency license is much less consequential vs. the "number of voices". It's functionally no different than if they had let Sinclair keep WABM, WTTO, WJSU, and WCFT. They should have prevented them from buying WBMA and its operations completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think they should've gone in the other direction. The FCC didn't really accomplish anything by allowing them to buy the operations of ABC33/40. With ATSC, the transmitter and frequency license is much less consequential vs. the "number of voices". It's functionally no different than if they had let Sinclair keep WABM, WTTO, WJSU, and WCFT. They should have prevented them from buying WBMA and its operations completely.

 

The FCC regulates use of the airwaves. They generally cannot regulate content for a whole host of issues, including first amendment rights.

 

Furthermore, there are "Due Process" issues in what you suggested that the FCC should have done. There are exceptions, but the general rule is that "Due Process" means that the government has to treat all parties equally and it has to apply its rules in an evenhanded manner. Currently, the FCC does not prevent the licensee of a full power television from owning a low power television station in the same market and the ABC affiliation is with WBMA-LD, a low power television station. To single out Sinclair and prohibit them from buying a low power television station when they allow other broadcasters like Gray to do the same thing, would have been a violation of Sinclair's constitutional due process rights and maybe even Albritton's property rights.

 

Sinclair owning so much television in a single market may be an issue for the Federal Trade Commission, as it was in Harrisburg, but that is not the case here since having the MyTV and CW affiliations don't result in a dominant market share either for viewers or for advertising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Last week it was WCFT. Tonight, its WJSU. For $50K.

 

Interesting that the agreement states that HSH will not seek carriage by MVPDs via must-carry rights and HSH agrees to allow MVPDs to leave WJSU's former programming on the same channel numbers even after it moves to WABM/WDBB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The FCC regulates use of the airwaves. They generally cannot regulate content for a whole host of issues, including first amendment rights.

 

Furthermore, there are "Due Process" issues in what you suggested that the FCC should have done. There are exceptions, but the general rule is that "Due Process" means that the government has to treat all parties equally and it has to apply its rules in an evenhanded manner. Currently, the FCC does not prevent the licensee of a full power television from owning a low power television station in the same market and the ABC affiliation is with WBMA-LD, a low power television station. To single out Sinclair and prohibit them from buying a low power television station when they allow other broadcasters like Gray to do the same thing, would have been a violation of Sinclair's constitutional due process rights and maybe even Albritton's property rights.

 

Sinclair owning so much television in a single market may be an issue for the Federal Trade Commission, as it was in Harrisburg, but that is not the case here since having the MyTV and CW affiliations don't result in a dominant market share either for viewers or for advertising.

 

I understand all that, and I understand that's why the FCC allowed the deal but forced it to be structured as it was. My post was more wishful thinking than complaining that the FCC didn't actually do it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking to a friend of mine over the weekend. He said that WCFT 33 is still broadcasting with "Heartland" on 33.1 and WJSU 40 is still broadcasting with "Heartland" on 40.1. Interesting that WJSU is still broadcasting considering that the request to sell the licence was made after the day that they were supposed to hand over the licence and cease transmitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was speaking to a friend of mine over the weekend. He said that WCFT 33 is still broadcasting with "Heartland" on 33.1 and WJSU 40 is still broadcasting with "Heartland" on 40.1. Interesting that WJSU is still broadcasting considering that the request to sell the licence was made after the day that they were supposed to hand over the licence and cease transmitting.

 

Well, the former WCIV 4.1 is still broadcasting ABC and 4.2 Me-TV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how they are doing this, especially in Charleston, with ABC since HSH was to have nothing to do with Sinclair's operations?

 

The deal hasn't closed yet. I suspect that they are just giving time until the transition is complete. I called WCIV yesterday and the receptionist answered "News 4 and 36". I would suspect that a change is on the horizon similar to what occurred in Nebraska with KSNB rebranding as NBC Nebraska instead of News 5 since they are technically on 4 now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The deal hasn't closed yet. I suspect that they are just giving time until the transition is complete. I called WCIV yesterday and the receptionist answered "News 4 and 36". I would suspect that a change is on the horizon similar to what occurred in Nebraska with KSNB rebranding as NBC Nebraska instead of News 5 since they are technically on 4 now.

 

Unless they have some kind of a side deal with HSH to share in the profits from the sale of spectrum, I say downgrade WCIV to low power and then continue to use virtual channel 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unless they have some kind of a side deal with HSH to share in the profits from the sale of spectrum, I say downgrade WCIV to low power and then continue to use virtual channel 4.

 

WCIV is officially 36.2. Former 4.1 is now playing Zuus Country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The deal hasn't closed yet. I suspect that they are just giving time until the transition is complete. I called WCIV yesterday and the receptionist answered "News 4 and 36". I would suspect that a change is on the horizon similar to what occurred in Nebraska with KSNB rebranding as NBC Nebraska instead of News 5 since they are technically on 4 now.

 

But we're past the date that they were supposed to surrender the licenses, and they're still broadcasting? Did the FCC approve this or are they still broadcasting without a license?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.