SCOTUS reinstates FCC's new ownership rules

[CubsFan79 36]

I can't see owning Two top 4 stations in big city markets like LA, New York, Miami, Seattle, Chicago ,Denver, Dallas etc Smaller markets in certain cities maybe. The FCC/NAB want to change a two decades plus outdated rule. Could we see more duopolies if the Supreme Court rules for the FCC. Gone are the days of the mom and pop TV stations

[Megatron81 61]

I think a lot of these rules are outdated and I hope that the FCC rules for the NAB & the FCC.

[CubsFan79 36]

I'm surprised duopolies between the top four tv stations did not happen before the 1990's. The advent of Cable TV, internet, FOX, CNN,MSNBC have changed platform of TV.

[dman748 1,118]

There 2 significances of importance here by virture of SCOTUS taking up this case and in the short term this affects both Scripps and Meredith.

 

1. This may reduce the number of stations Scripps would have to divest in the Ion deal not quite all the way down to zero stations but it may not be all 23 Ion stations being divested to INYO Broadcast Holdings, in fact there's a chance depending upon the ruiling from SCOTUS that INYO may only walk away with anywhere from 15 to 20 stations and Scripps hanging onto a few more stations than expected.

 

2. For Meredith since NBCO is impacted here, this may impact how Meredith ultimately decide what makes sense for them as a company whether they decide to ultimately split or by virture of the NBCO being elimated, being able to sell the company whole.

 

Although my own counter argument to that would be that for Meredith it may not even matter what SCOTUS rules on the deregulation moves, they may decide to eventually split up into 2 irrespective of whatever decision SCOTUS makes.

 

That's the short term implications of this news, I'll reserve the long term effects for Speculation 9000.

[CircleSeven 1,363]

4 minutes ago, oknewsguy said:

There 2 significances of importance here by virture of SCOTUS taking up this case and in the short term this affects both Scripps and Meredith.

 

2. For Meredith since NBCO is impacted here, this may impact how Meredith ultimately decide what makes sense for them as a company whether they decide to ultimately split or by virture of the NBCO being elimated, being able to sell the company whole.

 

Meredith doesn't have any local daily newspapers. They have national magazines. Magazines doesn't count in the NBCO rule.

[dman748 1,118]

2 minutes ago, CircleSeven said:

 

Meredith doesn't have any local daily newspapers. They have national magazines. Magazines doesn't count in the NBCO rule.

So Meredith isn't even a factor in this at least from the NBCO perspective then, got it,

[ABC 7 Denver 925]

6 hours ago, CubsFan79 said:

I can't see owning Two top 4 stations in big city markets like LA, New York, Miami, Seattle, Chicago ,Denver, Dallas etc Smaller markets in certain cities maybe. The FCC/NAB want to change a two decades plus outdated rule. Could we see more duopolies if the Supreme Court rules for the FCC. Gone are the days of the mom and pop TV stations

 

And given the SSAs, we may just see Sinclair and Cunningham each control two Big 4 in a market (with Cunningham seeding control to Sinclair, of course).

[scrabbleship 400]

6 hours ago, oknewsguy said:

So Meredith isn't even a factor in this at least from the NBCO perspective then, got it,

 

The company with the most teeth in an NBCO repeal would be Hearst. They're the last TV company of size with considerable newspaper holdings and in a way this could be one of the things that holds them back from expansion as a Hearst buy of most companies would have at least one conflict with a newspaper. Hearst is one of the few companies also openly playing both sides of the political spectrum so if they push this saying that the survival of a 130+ year old company is at stake, who would dare say no?

 

NPG might be the other considering their aborted attempt to buy KQTV from Heartland. 

 

1 hour ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

 

And given the SSAs, we may just see Sinclair and Cunningham each control two Big 4 in a market (with Cunningham seeding control to Sinclair, of course).

 

Wouldn't this require a vacuum of conditions that just couldn't exist unless the entire industry caved, and if it did Sinclair (and Nexstar) would be the most at risk?

[CubsFan79 36]

We also saw the attempt when GRAY TV a few years ago tried to buy KGWC TV, only to be denied by the DOJ and FCC. GRAY did buy KDLT while owning KSFY TV. What happened if Mission Broadcasting bought KDLT instead? What kind of ruling would the FCC have made then?

[TheOneManHerd 450]

Simpler times.

Edited October 5, 2020 by TheOneManHerd

[CubsFan79 36]

7 minutes ago, TheOneManHerd said:

Simpler times.

A little SNL and school rock humor. I like it.

[CircleSeven 1,363]

Looks like January 19 will be the date for oral arguments.

[CircleSeven 1,363]

Here's the audio of the oral arguments from yesterday (1/19).

[ABC 7 Denver 925]

11 hours ago, CircleSeven said:

Here's the audio of the oral arguments from yesterday (1/19).

 

Fascinating... I agree with the latter's oral argument. It seems that the FCC hasn't captured or analyzed data and that their effort to deregulate without data supporting the increased minority and female ownership pre-regulation nor to support that supposition post-deregulation is troubling. It also seems that the FCC simply has no tool at their disposal to assess those aspects and that their effort to deregulate will lead toward potential harm. I, personally, feel like the Court should issue an injunction until an exhibit can be presented that will demonstrate the effects of the FCC's argument that deregulation will improve minority and female ownership within the context of the larger timetable of pre-deregulation statistics specifying minority and female ownership since the policy's codification. Until such a time, however, it seems that the FCC's argument is speculative conjecture at best and specious at worse. Lastly, I won't pretend to know what legal remedies, especially toward assessment, are available to the Court. This is my two-cents.

Edited January 20 by ABC 7 Denver

[broadcastfan9751 133]

The Supreme Court has reinstated the new FCC broadcast ownership rules that were put in place under Ajit Pai. NOT an April Fools joke.

 

https://www.nexttv.com/news/supreme-court-overturns-third-circuit-smackdown-of-broadcast-dereg

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1231_i425.pdf

Edited April 1 by broadcastfan9751

[CircleSeven 1,363]

They didn't even have to wait until May or June to rule..... Wow!

[TheRob 608]

I think all it means at the moment is more court in the future. Pai proposed the original rules, and he's not there anymore.

[CubsFan79 36]

This was a fast ruling by the SC.  Will this impact the Gray Quincy deal especially in Rockford.

[GoldenShine9 1,097]

24 minutes ago, CubsFan79 said:

This was a fast ruling by the SC.  Will this impact the Gray Quincy deal especially in Rockford.

 

Not in Rockford since that was already legal (LP vs. full power).

[CubsFan79 36]

4 minutes ago, GoldenShine9 said:

 

Not in Rockford since that was already legal (LP vs. full power).

Your right WIFR is a LP station.

[CircleSeven 1,363]

He might not be there anymore but Pai's 2017 dereg rule is the law of the land.

 

All SCOTUS did was to reverse the Third Circuit's Fall 2019 ruling to vacate & remand the order.

 

And let me clarify that the 2017 order was from the Consolidated 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review.

 

Now the FCC has to complete the new 2018 Quadrennial Review. And this new Democratic-run FCC might place new restrictions that may not sit well with the broadcasters & pro-consolidation groups. And if that's that case, there's a likely chance we'll see these parties go back to court again.

 

Edited April 2 by CircleSeven

[DirtyHarry 304]

The key line in that story was that it was a unanimous decision. 

[CubsFan79 36]

SC ruling may have also impacted the Gray’s Ksfy and Kdlt TV duopoly. The Gray/ Quincy merger is up next with the FCC.