So, you're claiming 'big tech' developed streaming to hurt traditional media? Actually, streaming came about as a byproduct of Voice over IP technology used for phone calls.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Disney’s ABC Stations Could Be Bought By Nexstar With “Little Friction” If They Are Sold Off, Company Advisor Tom Carter Says
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
YouTube pouplarized streaming in 2005, and VOIP isnt live streaming its just connectivity not entertainment.
Where’s the head-bang emoji…..
No kidding. Spectrum on parade.
Actually audio streaming over the Internet began back in 1995:
"Broadcast.com was an Internet radio company founded as AudioNet in September 1995 by Cameron Christopher Jaeb. Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban later led the company's daily operations which was eventually sold to Yahoo! on April 1, 1999, for $5.7 billion, making it the most expensive acquisition Yahoo! has made."
I worked in the same office as Cameron and Mark Cuban when they started Broadcast.com.
That was until Napster came in and it gone kaput too few years later until Apple popularized digital music with iTunes. Obiously when is the last time that anyone used Yahoo since Google remains undeclinable and maintain an unchangable market share in search, adverstising and email. Also current owner Apollo also controls the Cox Media Group but they barely make synergies.
Stop commenting on "DarrenVision"'s posts. His nonsensical musings aren't worth wasting precious time.
First of all, I was replying to Mr. Simpson, not you. Second, occasionally DarrenVision makes a point which is legit. Ultimately they seem interested in TV and apparently streaming, and sometimes, assuming the comments are 'decipherable', are worth replying-to.
iTunes didn't debut until January 9th 2001, Napster sharing/downloading started in June of 1999. Broadcast.com started streaming in 1995;
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
See post #9 in this thread and please try not to clutter the thread with duplication of link postings. Thank you.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
FCC says duopolies cannot be created between two stations affiliated with the four major networks.
Los Angeles: KABC/7 is ABC, KTLA/5 is CW. Not a problem.
New York: WABC/7 is ABC, WPIX/11 is CW. Not a problem.
San Francisco: KGO/7 is ABC, KRON/4 is CW. Not a ... well, you get it by now.
Although Nexstar might be flattered that you think the CW is one of the four major networks.
The problem is far more academic: all but one of the ABC owned-stations are on VHF RF. Plus Nexstar (which is theoretically at 39% reach, despite in reality being at 69% reach without the “UHF Discount”) doesn’t even own WPIX and has no plans to sell anything in order to actually purchase WPIX, and will likely lose it for good.
Come to think of it, Tom Carter’s insane boast that started this thread basically dared the FCC to impose these recent rule changes, fining Mission and forcing them to sell WPIX and ensuring Mission couldn’t take over WADL as Nexstar originally intended. Great job, Tom!
The CW won’t have affiliates in Detroit and Miami come September 1, so defining them as a “network” is stretching it at this point.
Anthony Krupi of Sportico estimates that CW is only actually viewable in 57% of US households. I think that's *this* year, where it is still in those two large markets.
That's a combination of a significant minority of households who do not have away to watch linear TV at all, plus an affiliate base with some holes in it.
JeeperOne
Banned
Unless the FCC has changed this rule, Nexstar can't own two stations located below Channel 14. They would have to have A VERY good reason ro do that
And NONE of those CW stations would qualify for an exemption to this rule because although all of them are CW O&O's, they're also HIGHLY rated & make LOTS of money for Nexstar. KWGN 2 & KDVR 31 are in the same boat although since one is on a UHF channel while the other is on a VHF channel (Even back in the old Pre-DTV days), this was allowed even though KDVR is a Fox affiliate & the duopoly is a backwards one
There are other examples of backwards duopolies where the parent is on a higher channel (Both PSIP & often on cable & satellite) as well but I think you get the idea
THE ONLY one that might would be WTVD 11 (ABC) / WNCN 17 (CBS) in Raleigh, NC but somehow I don't CBS wants ANYTHING to do with a Jacksonville scenario (Where TEGNA owns the NBC & ABC affiliates there) if they can keep from it & would likely insist Nexstar sell one of them (But this much is JMO though)
Huh?? NBC owns several stations on virtual channel 4. There is no limitation on what virtual channel a station can have in multiple markets.
Wait what?? The only thing that makes money for local stations is if you also carry local newscasts. And lately, even that model is under pressure.
Where do you come up with this stuff?There are other examples of backwards duopolies where the parent is on a higher channel (Both PSIP & often on cable & satellite) as well but I think you get the idea
Gobbledygook.
JeeperOne
Banned
Unless the FCC has changed this rule, Nexstar can't own two stations located below Channel 14. They would have to have A VERY good reason ro do that
And NONE of those CW stations would qualify for an exemption to this rule because although all of them are CW O&O's, they're also HIGHLY rated & make LOTS of money for Nexstar. KWGN 2 & KDVR 31 are in the same boat although since one is on a UHF channel while the other is on a VHF channel (Even back in the old Pre-DTV days), this was allowed even though KDVR is a Fox affiliate & the duopoly is a backwards one
There are other examples of backwards duopolies where the parent is on a higher channel (Both PSIP & often on cable & satellite) as well but I think you get the idea
THE ONLY one that might would be WTVD 11 (ABC) / WNCN 17 (CBS) in Raleigh, NC but somehow I don't CBS wants ANYTHING to do with a Jacksonville scenario (Where TEGNA owns the NBC & ABC affiliates there) if they can keep from it & would likely insist Nexstar sell one of them (But this much is JMO though)
For starters, you have VHF & UHF channels TOTALLY BACKWARDS as VHF has ALWAYS been channels 2-13 (Minus the time when there was a channel 1) while UHF channels have ALWAYS been ANYTHING above channel 14
Secondly, NBC isn't the only one that owns a channel 4 (Remember KCNC?? Who is IT owned by)
And the CW O&O's we're talking about here ALL have LARGE IN HOUSE news departments (Not to mention the FACT that KTLA & WPIX were once SUPERSTATIONS (They still are in some ways)
As for backwards duopiles - I just named one - KWGN 2 (CW O&O) & KDVR 31 (Fox affiliate) (And I did THAT as I'm HEADED TO BED (Sleep issues make my sleep patterns go all over the place) !! What's YOUR excuse for not SEEING the backwards duo I posted??)
The only thing I didn't do is name other specific examples as I couldn't think of any offhand. But that doesn't mean they don't exist
NOT "gobbldigook"
VHF or UHF none of what you claim matters as far as who owns what virtual channels in which markets.
And unlike you. I've worked in TV, including corporate management, for over twenty-five years. Most of your ramblings and claims, including the ones I commented on, are simply uninformed gibberish.
Duh! It was an example of an owner who owns more than one Channel 4.
Were once, isn't today now is it? And just because someone called themselves a "superstation" back in the 80s is just a marketing catchphrase. Not that the station exceeded revenue as compared with the rest of the industry.
Because you don't know what you're saying, nor make any sense. Yes indeed, please get some sleep so maybe next time you can post something coherent.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Please explain your logic. I do not believe you understand the rules regarding duopolies. Whether a station operates on a VHF or UHF channel -- or even what its PSIP is -- has no bearing on that.
Read the Wikipedia article on the subject. It is surprisingly accurate.
Here is the relevant point: Up to two television stations in the same media market may be co-owned if either the service areas of the stations do not overlap, or at least one of the stations is not rated among the top four rated stations in the media market.
Which band the station transmits on is not a factor for determining if a duopoly can be allowed. Nor does the PSIP channel. VHF vs. UHF is only considered in how a station group's nationwide coverage is calculated. Nothing more.
Again ... as I said earlier (and which you attempted to disprove with your original post), because the existing Nexstar stations in L.A., NYC, and S.F. are affiliates of The CW, they are not among the top four stations in the ratings ... as is the case in pretty much every television market -- and certainly all of the major markets -- the ratings toppers are stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, Fox or NBC. Therefore, they could acquire the ABC stations in those markets.
I will not bring Nexstar's current legal problem with WPIX into the discussion because it has no bearing on the duopoly question.
But I will bring a real-world example into play which completely proves the above and disproves your misunderstanding of the rules regarding duopolies: In Los Angeles, where CBS already owned KCBS/2, they purchased KCAL/9 in 2002 ... more than two decades ago. Both are "below channel 14" by your definition, yet the FCC did not block the sale, nor have they moved to reverse it.
Your honor, I rest my case.
Last edited:
True too and today UHF and VHF has no meaning given where we are today.
You don't get to invent your own FCC rules, no matter how much you shout about it in all caps.
The actual duopoly rules have nothing to do with network affiliation or VHF/UHF. It's entirely based on the number of stations in the market and on ratings.
You can't create a duopoly if it includes more than one of the top four rated stations in the market, unless you can get a "failing station" waiver for the combination. That usually means ABC/CBS/Fox/NBC, but not always. There are markets where the Univision station is in the top 4 and one of the "Big Four" affiliates isn't.
And there's no such thing in the rules as a "backwards duopoly." A duopoly is a duopoly, regardless of channel number or affiliation.
On this forum you can have your own opinion, but you don't get to make up your own facts.
The actual duopoly rules have nothing to do with network affiliation or VHF/UHF. It's entirely based on the number of stations in the market and on ratings.
You can't create a duopoly if it includes more than one of the top four rated stations in the market, unless you can get a "failing station" waiver for the combination. That usually means ABC/CBS/Fox/NBC, but not always. There are markets where the Univision station is in the top 4 and one of the "Big Four" affiliates isn't.
And there's no such thing in the rules as a "backwards duopoly." A duopoly is a duopoly, regardless of channel number or affiliation.
On this forum you can have your own opinion, but you don't get to make up your own facts.
- Status