HOW WILL WFAN's MOVE TO 101.9 AFFECT 1010 WINS?

[Barry]

So if the plan is to sell WLNY-TV to remain within the ownership limits (as is being reported on the other message board for this area), does that transaction need to be actually consummated before CBS can legally begin an LMA of WRXP?
If so, I would think it could take at least a few months before 'RXP gives way to a simulcast of WFAN.

[Scott Fybush]

WLNY could go into a divestiture trust in the meantime, or CBS might even be able to simply make the case to the FCC that it plans to put WLNY into the auction as soon as that's possible.

[Barry]

WLNY could go into a divestiture trust in the meantime, or CBS might even be able to simply make the case to the FCC that it plans to put WLNY into the auction as soon as that's possible.

Then I wonder why the WFAN simulcast on WRXP does not begin right away, under the LMA. It shouldn't take long at all to make the technical moves required to retransmit WFAN's programming on 101.9. When ESPN LMA'd 98.7, they began simulcasting WEPN 1050 on it a few days after the deal was announced.

[badjef]

It will not take that long for the simulcast to take place, hey are already promoting it pretty heavily on the air.

As soon as the papers are signed for control to CBS, a waiver can be granted for the rest of the time, assuming it is needed.

The rules are so convoluted and Scott is right, if WLNY is included in the deal with the FCC, it is brilliant. But we are all looking at ways we can operate inside of the current regulations. These companies find people who can accomplish things outside of the intent.

I liken it to the criminal and the perfect crime. We will all criticize him for breaking the law and secretly admire him for his ingenuity.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

[Bob1370]

1010 WINS, or at least its license and transmitter, will simply go away to some other owner for at least $30 million cash (the stick value for a directional 50 kW AM established recently in the WOR sale) and God-only-knows what future format (my guess is mail order Bible thumping of some kind, or else Clear Channel might buy it to max its market cluster and clear more Premiere Network shows). It gets put in a trust and then sold ASAP. The "intellectual property" of WINS, its format, staff and call sign, will all move to 660 the moment the WFAN simulcast ends this winter, giving CBS two full market blowtorch news signals and five Class-B FMs. The Fan stays at 101.9, all the other FMs retain their formats (although an attractive offer might pry one of them loose at a later date, since probably only WCBS-AM 880, WCBS-FM101.1, WCBS-TV, the future 660 WINS and WFAN-FM 101.9 are absolutely, unequivocally not for sale ever).

WLNY-TV may or may not have to be sold--maybe CBS can convince the FCC that it's in a different ADI for both radio and TV purposes, and when you come to think of it, that could be a valid assertion...

[recto101]

I'm hearing that CBS will stay within the FCC Ownership Cap by selling the transmitter and license of channel 55 but keep the "WLNY 10/55" brand as a cable only channel. Therefore no radio stations will need to be sold.

Is it possible to make WLNY function the same way that RSN's work.

[WNTIRadio]

I think the idea here is to acquire another property to be able to leave everything that is making money, in this case the whole CBS cluster alone.

They're not looking to spin off 1010 or anything else.  They're also not looking to move 1010 either.  It makes tons of money where it is and has been for 47 years.  Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

Don't be fooled by 92.3's 6+ numbers either.  The 18-34 and mainly the sales numbers are the most important.  It's obviously making money since WFAN didn't wind up on 92.3.

Remember this is a business first, everything else later.  Follow the dollars.

[nickp]

CBS could consolidate the two all-news stations into one

[DavidEduardo]

WLNY-TV may or may not have to be sold--maybe CBS can convince the FCC that it's in a different ADI for both radio and TV purposes, and when you come to think of it, that could be a valid assertion...

Bob, there are no ADI's.

"ADI" is an Arbitron TV term. Do you know how long ago Arbitron stopped doing TV ratings and, thus, killed the ADI term?

The FCC uses Arbitron radio MSA's to establish market definitions. Nassau and Suffolk counties are very, very much a part of the New York City MSA and (absolutely a part of the TV DMS) since in the two-county area less than 30% of radio listening is to "local" stations and the remainder goes to New York City radio stations.

Radio metros and TV DMA's are based on a variety of factors, including the amount of listening to the "central city" (or cities) stations, commute patterns, etc. The FCC has accepted the Arbitron system for defining a metro and uses it to determine the market caps and the stations that are attributed to a market.

You certainly could not claim that Hempstead is not part of the functioning New York City metro...

In any case, the option of making Ch. 55 a cable only channel is the one that makes the most sense.

Sidebar: Clear Channel would love a waiver or redefinition as then they could keep the successful LI operation that is now in the Aloha Trust. A waiver was also made on the ownership caps in Puerto Rico, based on the fact that no single station comes remotely close to covering the Arbitron-defined "metro" there, but that is not the case in New York City.

[DavidEduardo]

I'm hearing that CBS will stay within the FCC Ownership Cap by selling the transmitter and license of channel 55 but keep the "WLNY 10/55" brand as a cable only channel. Therefore no radio stations will need to be sold.

That makes sense, in that cable penetration in the NYC metro is among the highest in the USA. It stands at 96.6% for Cable and ADS and 83.3% for wired cable alone. As long as CBS can convince the cable operators to keep 10/55 on the systems even in the absence of "must carry" (or if, as Scott suggests, they offer up the spectrum to keep must carry) then they have effectively created a "free" TV channel with none of the costs of maintaining a transmitter site.