-
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
ABC moves from WPLG to WSVN in Miami
- Thread starter NYAZSporty
- Start date
I am an OTA / streaming person on the very edge of the ATL market. Occasionally the weather messes with the OTA signals. One time I jumped to Paramount to watch something my wife really wanted to see, and I believe I saw the Atlanta commercials (car dealers) on Paramount. The best I can tell it was about 45 secs to a minute delay. Does Paramount "geo fence" the CBS affiliates or was I confused after a few to many drinks?
They would get sued by Fox for breach of contract.
Depends on their contract with FOX. Hopefully (for Fox) there is something in the contract. It could be interesting when the contract is up.
Ten o'clock news for Fox (Eastern time) 11pm for ABC. Hopefully Fox doesn't run late so the same news anchors can do both.
I worked with a guy who had the knack for selling sports of any kind. Fox NFL and Monday Night Football (part of the time ABC gets the games), college Football and Basketball, Soccer, and few NASCAR races on Fox. He would be driving an new car every other year.
That will never happen. Remember, WSVN is a local news powerhouse that just happens to have a network affiliation. And the advantages of being with FOX, rather than the other three is that FOX doesn't send out network programming throughout the morning into the late night hours. That frees them up to program what they do best, local news. It also ties into their branding - just channel 7, no FOX7. FOX would usually have a problem with that, but considering how successful they are, and how much they've influenced the network and it's affiliates themselves, they don't make a big stink about it. In return, FOX gives them the clout of a major network affiliate, along with a sports-heavy schedule on weekends (the main thing they worried about when they lost NBC in 1989). But, all-in-all, WSVN and FOX appear to have an excellent relationship, and are ideal partners.
With the ABC affiliation on 7.2, they do get more programming from the network feed, which works because I really can't see them creating a second news-heavy station. They can fill holes on ABC Miami with news simulcasts, a few syndicated shows, and perhaps new local lifestyle or chat shows, which would work well given ABC's longtime emphasis on female-oriented programming.
All in all, FOX isn't going anywhere in Miami. It works perfectly for what WSVN does on 7.1. ABC Miami is just an additional service they have the structure to set up (though they'll need good cable and satellite placement).
Not mentioned in any of the discussions here is that, in Miami, the Big Four is really the Big Six. The local Univision and Telemundo affiliates often dominate the ratings, from what I hear. Therefore, it seems less strange for ABC to piggyback as a subchannel.
It's important to view moves like this from a 2025 lens, which is very different from even a 2015 lens, never mind the 1990s or 1970s where some of us seem to be stuck.
Very little network TV is appointment viewing anymore. All of the networks are driving harder deals with affiliate groups to try to squeeze out every dollar of reverse compensation they can get, and smaller operators like Graham/Berkshire Hathaway can't push back the way a Sinclair or Gray or Nexstar can.
OTA viewing is a relatively small piece of the pie, and I don't think it really makes any difference now that it will be "7.2" instead of "7.1". If viewers want GMA or the View or General Hospital or Abbott Elementary, it's still right there on the same "dial," just a couple of clicks earlier.
For the vast majority of viewers on cable, satellite or streaming, it really won't matter. If I have General Hospital set as a favorite show on my YouTube TV (and I DO, because my mom shares the account and she can't miss her show!), it will just keep recording it every day whether it's on "WPLG-ABC" or "WSVN-ABC." I won't even know it's a ".2" on any of those services.
If anything, the move is actually going to put some pressure on WPLG to maintain *its* presence on some of these services. The next time it's up for retrans renewal with cable and satellite, it will surely get lower rates because of the loss of network programming from ABC, and some of those services might decide they can drop WPLG entirely without leaving viewers who will change services just to get "Local 10." And some, like YouTube TV, tend to ONLY carry major network affiliates and not some of the indies, so it will be interesting to see if they try to simply replace WPLG with WSVN-ABC.
Very little network TV is appointment viewing anymore. All of the networks are driving harder deals with affiliate groups to try to squeeze out every dollar of reverse compensation they can get, and smaller operators like Graham/Berkshire Hathaway can't push back the way a Sinclair or Gray or Nexstar can.
OTA viewing is a relatively small piece of the pie, and I don't think it really makes any difference now that it will be "7.2" instead of "7.1". If viewers want GMA or the View or General Hospital or Abbott Elementary, it's still right there on the same "dial," just a couple of clicks earlier.
For the vast majority of viewers on cable, satellite or streaming, it really won't matter. If I have General Hospital set as a favorite show on my YouTube TV (and I DO, because my mom shares the account and she can't miss her show!), it will just keep recording it every day whether it's on "WPLG-ABC" or "WSVN-ABC." I won't even know it's a ".2" on any of those services.
If anything, the move is actually going to put some pressure on WPLG to maintain *its* presence on some of these services. The next time it's up for retrans renewal with cable and satellite, it will surely get lower rates because of the loss of network programming from ABC, and some of those services might decide they can drop WPLG entirely without leaving viewers who will change services just to get "Local 10." And some, like YouTube TV, tend to ONLY carry major network affiliates and not some of the indies, so it will be interesting to see if they try to simply replace WPLG with WSVN-ABC.
That's what the Miami Herald is saying:
They already exist in smaller markets, in droves. It's certainly one of the things I expect the FCC to look at doing in their "Delete, Delete, Delete" proceeding.
The FCC never really reworked its rules to account for the possibility that a major network can be on a .2 or .3 subchannel, and so we've seen a lot of operators move affiliations around in smaller markets to get around some of the ownership cap rules.
There are a handful of markets already (Lima, Ohio is one) where one broadcaster controls all of the Big 4 affiliations. There will be more, certainly.
No problem, appreciate it so there isn't much clutter on the title line which would be perhaps more fitting to put on the actual post.
And the Lima situation exists because Block bought three LPTVs in 2009 and coordinated them to translate each other alongside the full-power signal (WLIO). A scenario the FCC never accounted for and is thus totally permissable.
In what way? It's literally on the exact same RF signal (WPLG and WSVN channel-share), and it will be on every cable, satellite and streaming service just like it is now.
It's 2025, not 1985.
Probably not, because there's a character limit on station names. It will probably show as WSVN-A or even just ABC.
(You're still overthinking this.)
Since Miami is a metered market, the ID is not particularly important. Miami for decades has had a very low percentage of OTA usage of TV, so the channel is even less relevant.
Scott... Actually in 1985 there were 6,600 cable systems serving more than 41.5 million households (nearly 50 percent of US households). Today, over 60% of US households prefer streaming over traditional cable. As such, the situation was MORE favorable for relying on cable delivery in 2025. Take my house for example, where we cord-cut a decade ago and have been relying on streaming plus over the air (OTA) via a rooftop antenna. The picture quality of the primary channel of the OTA signals is FAR superior for the main channel than it is for a signal's side channel(s). The subpar picture quality of the supplemental digital signals (less pristine and clear) causes a clear bias to somewhat avoid viewing those side channels. Also, for some OTA signals the primary station comes in quite okay but the side channel sometimes is pixelated or does not display at all.
THUS, it literally is NOT the exact same. Moreover, to your comment about streaming filling the gap... ABC does NOT stream its stations live on Hulu. CBS does on Paramount+, but the issue here is ABC... and thus for that network and for WSVN is there going to be degradation in the Miami/Dade/Broward market? My sense is yes, which I think will be borne out by the loss of no longer having ABC on Channel 10's primary signal.
They stream on ABC.com.