CubsFan79 36 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 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 The FCC/NAB want to change a two decades plus outdated rule.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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Megatron81 61 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 I think a lot of these rules are outdated and I hope that the FCC rules for the NAB & the FCC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CubsFan79 36 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dman748 1,118 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CircleSeven 1,363 Posted October 5, 2020 Author Share Posted October 5, 2020 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dman748 1,118 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 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, 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ABC 7 Denver 925 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 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). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scrabbleship 400 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CubsFan79 36 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheOneManHerd 450 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) Simpler times. Edited October 5, 2020 by TheOneManHerd 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CubsFan79 36 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, TheOneManHerd said: Simpler times. A little SNL and school rock humor. I like it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CircleSeven 1,363 Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 Looks like January 19 will be the date for oral arguments. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CircleSeven 1,363 Posted January 20 Author Share Posted January 20 Here's the audio of the oral arguments from yesterday (1/19). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ABC 7 Denver 925 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
broadcastfan9751 133 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 (edited) 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CircleSeven 1,363 Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 They didn't even have to wait until May or June to rule..... Wow! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheRob 608 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CubsFan79 36 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 This was a fast ruling by the SC. Will this impact the Gray Quincy deal especially in Rockford. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GoldenShine9 1,097 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 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). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CubsFan79 36 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 4 minutes ago, GoldenShine9 said: Not in Rockford since that was already legal (LP vs. full power). Your right WIFR is a LP station. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CircleSeven 1,363 Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 (edited) 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyHarry 304 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 The key line in that story was that it was a unanimous decision. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CubsFan79 36 Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 SC ruling may have also impacted the Gray’s Ksfy and Kdlt TV duopoly. The Gray/ Quincy merger is up next with the FCC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.