GoldenShine9 1509 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 If KTVD took on the affiliation now they could, but if in a couple of years, KTVD overtook KDVR in the ratings and Tegna got bought by someone (for example, Nexstar) , then there'd be a problem. KUSA would go to Nexstar and KTVD would go either to someone like Meredith or Cox, or to (insert Nexstar shell corporation name here). Jacksonville, Norfolk, Fresno, Indianapolis, El Paso, San Antonio, Meridian & formerly Albuquerque and Boise are examples of Big 4 duopolies legally existing. Affiliates of big 4 networks don't always (or didn't at the time) constitute the 4 largest stations in a market. In the case of Meridian, I believe they are due to failing station waivers or low powers, since there are nowhere near enough stations in that market (and even then, WTOK destroys everything else). In Boise, the KIVI/KNIN duopoly had to be broken since KNIN was no longer a failing station once it got the Fox affiliation. Another possible case of that in the future could be in Portland where there are currently 9 full power stations and one legal duopoly possible (the Sinclair duopoly right now is not really one, since KUNP is far from Portland and has no signal overlap, really should be part of the Boise or Yakima etc. market). If Sinclair decides to shut down KRCW and move it to 2.2 (most likely IMO), then should Meredith be sold later, then the KPTV/KPDX duopoly would need to be broken up regardless of ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadcastfan9751 136 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 If KTVD took on the affiliation now they could, but if in a couple of years, KTVD overtook KDVR in the ratings and Tegna got bought by someone (for example, Nexstar) , then there'd be a problem. KUSA would go to Nexstar and KTVD would go either to someone like Meredith or Cox, or to (insert Nexstar shell corporation name here). Jacksonville, Norfolk, Fresno, Indianapolis, El Paso, San Antonio, Meridian & formerly Albuquerque and Boise are examples of Big 4 duopolies legally existing. Affiliates of big 4 networks don't always (or didn't at the time) constitute the 4 largest stations in a market. The FCC changed its rules last year to prevent such an affiliation swap from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadcastfan9751 136 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 That was a proposal. That NPRM has probably stalled if it is still active in this current FCC. No, it's an actual rule now. It was passed in the 2014 Quadrennial Ownership Review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 If KTVD took on the affiliation now they could, but if in a couple of years, KTVD overtook KDVR in the ratings and Tegna got bought by someone (for example, Nexstar) , then there'd be a problem. KUSA would go to Nexstar and KTVD would go either to someone like Meredith or Cox, or to (insert Nexstar shell corporation name here). Jacksonville, Norfolk, Fresno, Indianapolis, El Paso, San Antonio, Meridian & formerly Albuquerque and Boise are examples of Big 4 duopolies legally existing. Affiliates of big 4 networks don't always (or didn't at the time) constitute the 4 largest stations in a market. WJXX was the first — coming a day after duopolies were allowed in August 1999. It had just become the ABC affiliate two years prior, so it was not in the top 4 in the ratings. In most of the others (especially Fresno), the rise of Spanish-language TV is the reason. The WTVJ-WPLG deal, which fell through because 2008, was also legal for the same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfuego35 89 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 No, it's an actual rule now. It was passed in the 2014 Quadrennial Ownership Review. And this is one of the ones that Paidoff didn't repeal when he was repealing the other rules. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 And this is one of the ones that Paidoff didn't repeal when he was repealing the other rules. I wonder why? Probably because it was seen as a circumvention of existing rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColtFromGulfcoast 695 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 And this is one of the ones that Paidoff didn't repeal when he was repealing the other rules. I wonder why? It won't exist for long if it does exist. 1. If you think about it, what network could make you a top 4 station? Any network could depending on what kind of shows and other content you show outside of network hours. There is no guarantee that affiliating with Fox would automatically send you into the top 4. 2. Like all other rules, or most of them, there is a way around it. Just bring out the shells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compubit 670 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 Jacksonville, Norfolk, Fresno, Indianapolis, El Paso, San Antonio, Meridian & formerly Albuquerque and Boise are examples of Big 4 duopolies legally existing. Affiliates of big 4 networks don't always (or didn't at the time) constitute the 4 largest stations in a market. Especially in areas of high Hispanic concentration, Univision and/or Telemundo is a top 4 station... Eventually, the US could migrate to the model used elsewhere (Europe, for example): one organization owns the broadcast side of things (transmitters, interconnect networks, etc.), and then the programmers provide the program streams. In Germany, Each transmitter site is centrally managed, and airs between 3 and 7 physical channels (big cities have more channels than smaller towns). Each physical channel is made up of several virtual channels (like in the US), but the transmitting organization manages which program stream is on which physical channel. The emphasis on ensuring one organization doesn't have more than X% of the US covered is quatsch to me. I suspect some diginets exceed that amount and no one complains that MeTV has 64% OTA coverage in the US and has a single owner (I made up that number, so don't hold me to it...). With cable/satellite/over the top television, those stations have a nationwide audience. Do we need to break CNN or FoxNews into 2 or 3 affiliates covering a part of the country, so that one company doesn't "control" too much viewing? As longs as they can pay the bills, and meet any public service requirements (should local news be a public service requirement?), I don't care if NBC or Sinclair or Marks Radio Group wants to air its own programming on nationwide coverage. The direction we're headed is consolidated ownership, who effectively manages everything from end to end, and the train isn't slowing down. The content owners will do what they want to manage the content - if that's running their own network of stations (and no to few affiliates), or going cable only, except in some large cities with OTA, then that's their choice. I've said my peace. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColtFromGulfcoast 695 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 Another possible case of that in the future could be in Portland where there are currently 9 full power stations and one legal duopoly possible (the Sinclair duopoly right now is not really one, since KUNP is far from Portland and has no signal overlap, really should be part of the Boise or Yakima etc. market). If Sinclair decides to shut down KRCW and move it to 2.2 (most likely IMO), then should Meredith be sold later, then the KPTV/KPDX duopoly would need to be broken up regardless of ratings. But would KPDX be able to make it without KPTV's support? That's the million-dollar question. On a sidenote, I thought KUNP's COL (La Grande) was part of Bend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 I don't think a lot of these to become Fox affiliates will be operated by the same company who owns WNYW, KTTV, etc. The deal calls for Fox to cede operational control of their O&Os to Ion Television. Fox isn't selling the licenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 The deal calls for Fox to cede operational control of their O&Os to Ion Television. Fox isn't selling the licenses. So they'll end up being FOX O&NO's (Owned & Not Operated). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColtFromGulfcoast 695 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 So they'll end up being FOX O&NO's (Owned & Not Operated). In a nutshell, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadcastfan9751 136 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 On a sidenote, I thought KUNP's COL (La Grande) was part of Bend? No, La Grande is in Union County, OR, which is in the Portland market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanchamBro 19 Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 In a nutshell, yes. I don't think Fox isn't giving their O&O stations to Ion, rather, they're trying to move Fox to Ion stations located in a market where Sinclair has a Fox station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 I don't think Fox isn't giving their O&O stations to Ion, rather, they're trying to move Fox to Ion stations located in a market where Sinclair has a Fox station. No, you're reading it wrong after its already been spelled out here on this thread. Fox is going to be giving up operational control of their O&Os but retain the licenses... in conjunction with terminating their deals with Tribune and Sinclair and affiliating with multiple ION stations. It outright says so in every article and analysis available. Excuse me for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Journalist 893 Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 Excuse me for a minute. Oh&No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoadStar 363 Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 I still wonder how *much* operational control they would cede. I mean, they would still own the stations, so they would likely still want to have quite a bit of input as to what the "look and feel" of the stations will be. I also can't imagine how they could possibly move FOX to some of the Ion stations like the one in Milwaukee. The station is run out of a light industrial suite that can't be any more than 3000 sq ft (probably less) on the north side of town. I imagine it's basically just racks of equipment, since the local station carries the Ion network programming 24/7. I'd be surprised if they even have any kind of a local "master control" facility here in town. They definitely would have zero ability to do news or any other local programming, not without buying or building an entire new facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 I still wonder how *much* operational control they would cede. I mean, they would still own the stations, so they would likely still want to have quite a bit of input as to what the "look and feel" of the stations will be. I also can't imagine how they could possibly move FOX to some of the Ion stations like the one in Milwaukee. The station is run out of a light industrial suite that can't be any more than 3000 sq ft (probably less) on the north side of town. I imagine it's basically just racks of equipment, since the local station carries the Ion network programming 24/7. I'd be surprised if they even have any kind of a local "master control" facility here in town. They definitely would have zero ability to do news or any other local programming, not without buying or building an entire new facility. Apparently they have a public affairs show, but yeah, that's peanuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 I still wonder how *much* operational control they would cede. I mean, they would still own the stations, so they would likely still want to have quite a bit of input as to what the "look and feel" of the stations will be. I also can't imagine how they could possibly move FOX to some of the Ion stations like the one in Milwaukee. The station is run out of a light industrial suite that can't be any more than 3000 sq ft (probably less) on the north side of town. I imagine it's basically just racks of equipment, since the local station carries the Ion network programming 24/7. I'd be surprised if they even have any kind of a local "master control" facility here in town. They definitely would have zero ability to do news or any other local programming, not without buying or building an entire new facility. Think of it as a relaunch of the old cable-only FoxNet that Fox used in markets that had no Fox affiliate. Of course the other goal, which is totally obvious, is to have this as a shakedown on Sinclair. Yeah, there's going to be infrastructure issues with the ION stations, but the Sinclair-Tribune Fox stations suddenly devoid of an affiliation will be... to put it bluntly... screwed, big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColDayNews 437 Posted August 8, 2017 Author Share Posted August 8, 2017 Think of it as a relaunch of the old cable-only FoxNet that Fox used in markets that had no Fox affiliate. Of course the other goal, which is totally obvious, is to have this as a shakedown on Sinclair. Yeah, there's going to be infrastructure issues with the ION stations, but the Sinclair-Tribune Fox stations suddenly devoid of an affiliation will be... to put it bluntly... screwed, big time. Or in the words of a certain President... they will be screwed "bigly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Fox stations suddenly devoid of an affiliation will be... to put it bluntly... screwed, big time. Sinclair has the right to be screwed...big time. That's how it works in the good old USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 I wonder if Sinclair ends up making a concession to FOX and sells them a good chunk of their FOX affiliated stations. Although I much prefer that the Sinclair/Tribune ends up blowing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Sinclair has the right to be screwed...big time. That's how it works in the good old USA. To think it could be the free market - which conservatives often preach - that harms Sinclair the most...poetic justice there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 I wonder if Sinclair ends up making a concession to FOX and sells them a good chunk of their FOX affiliated stations. Although I much prefer that the Sinclair/Tribune ends up blowing up. I'd think Sinclair would go after someone else very quickly in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 I'd think Sinclair would go after someone else very quickly in that case. Yes... Most likely Sinclair will be forced to eat some children... The beast must continue to feed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.