Duolopoly Sucks!

[e-dawg]

Ever since 1999, the FCC relaxed the 1 tv station per market rule and form a doulopoly with certain execptions. As of 2006, doulopoly cause certain TV markets to fold their newscast and combined into one newscast. Doulopoly causes lots of laid-offs, and less competition in market such as Duluth, Fort Wayne, Jacksonville FL, Columbus Ohio. The ABC station in Jacksonville FL did produced local newscast, but with the duolopy rule, ABC newscast has been cancel and now shows a simucast of Channel 12 newscast. Are we going to see an end to duolopy rules anytime soon. For the people who works at WLVI news, you better start sending in your resume because your newscast will be folded by WHDH Channel 7.

 

[jal41]

Re: Duopoly Sucks!

Ever since 1999, the FCC relaxed the 1 tv station per market rule and form a doulopoly with certain execptions. As of 2006, doulopoly cause certain TV markets to fold their newscast and combined into one newscast. Doulopoly causes lots of laid-offs, and less competition in market such as Duluth, Fort Wayne, Jacksonville FL, Columbus Ohio. The ABC station in Jacksonville FL did produced local newscast, but with the duolopy rule, ABC newscast has been cancel and now shows a simucast of Channel 12 newscast. Are we going to see an end to duolopy rules anytime soon. For the people who works at WLVI news, you better start sending in your resume because your newscast will be folded by WHDH Channel 7.

Funny, because in Jacksonville, Gannett ownes both an ABC and NBC station. At the same time, WJXT Channel 4 in Jacksonville sits with no network affiliation. Current rules prevent one company from owning 2 big fours in a market. Gannett must have a waiver for some reason. Out of fairness for the rules, I think Gannett should be forced to divest one of the networks to WJXT.

No rule about 2 newscasts. Fox's WNYW and WWOR in New York have seperate newsrooms. And where NBC owns both an NBC and Telemundo station, the newscasts and newsrooms are seperate. Gannett merged the newsrooms solely to save $$$$$$$.

No end to the rules, because you-know-who is in charge of the rules. Even if that changes, the broadcast companies will have it tied up in court.

And yes, I am sure WLVI's newsroom will merge with WHDH (WLVI only has 10 PM news).

 

[RadioFanBoy]

KCBS and former Indepandant KCAL in Los Angeles are both owned by CBS......same anchors, same set, SAME STORIES. And CBS uses KACL as a dumping ground for crappy shows.

 

[retrothoughts]

The ABC station in Jacksonville FL did produce a local newscast, but with the duopoly rule, the ABC newscast has been canceled and now shows a simulcast of Channel 12 newscast.

Rather than simulcast the Jacksonville NBC station's news on the ABC station, I think the ABC station should--unless they want to show an off-network sitcom rerun or other syndicated product--reverse the format of the NBC station's newscast.

For example, if the NBC station's 11 pm format is news, followed by weather and sports [as many stations' newscasts are], the ABC station can run weather first, followed by sports and news, because, as research has often proved, the main reason people watch local news is the weather.

 

[Kent]

Re: Duopoly Sucks!

Funny, because in Jacksonville, Gannett ownes both an ABC and NBC station. At the same time, WJXT Channel 4 in Jacksonville sits with no network affiliation. Current rules prevent one company from owning 2 big fours in a market. Gannett must have a waiver for some reason. Out of fairness for the rules, I think Gannett should be forced to divest one of the networks to WJXT.

There is no rule against owning two big fours in a market. The rule prohibits owning two of the top-4 RATED stations in the market. There is a dual network ownership prohibition, but that applies to the networks themselves, not station operators. In the case of Gannett, it was able to own both NBC and ABC because WJXX was not one of the top-4 rated stations. Clear Channel also has CBS and Fox in that market. They ended up with both because WTEV was a low-rated station with, I believe, UPN affiliation and got CBS after WJXT dropped it.

I see nothing unfair with WJXT being an independent. They had CBS but didn't want to pay reverse compensation. So, they let it walk away. They have the option of trying to get any network affiliation they want when its affiliation contract expires. I'm also not sure WJXT would want a network affiliation. Keep in mind they didn't make a run at CW or My Network TV, like KRON did in San Francisco. WJXT is more like KTVK in Phoenix; it's a very successful independent station that continues to outdo many of the network affiliates.

 

[arnoldevns]

Duopolies don't suck. Sometimes the way station owners use them sucks.

In the DFW markets, there are 4 duopolies. (likely soon to be 5)
KDFW-Fox 4 / KDFI-My 27
KXAS-NBC 5/ KXTX-Telemundo 39
KTVT-CBS 11/KTXA-21 (formerly UPN)
KUVN-Uni 23/KSTR-Telefutura 49

WFAA-ABC 8 is an LSA (might be an LMA now) with KFWD-52 - and has an option to buy the station.

My 27 would be dark or a religious channel by now if Fox didn't own it. It runs news from Fox 4 only after baseball or hockey games.

Telemundo 39 has a news operation that relies on some help from NBC 5, but still has a seperate newsroom and talent.

TXA-21 is starting a news operation monday that will has a different newsroom and set from CBS 11. The on air talent will also be mostly different from CBS 11.

Telefutura 49 - no local news of any kind. Then again, I don't think any Telefutura stations have that anyway - so what's the difference?

 

[gr8oldies]

Odds are here in Dayton, OH, WKEF would have folded its low-rated newscast by now if the duopoly with WRGT did not exist. Instead, WRGT does OK with a 10pm cast, and while WKEF's newscast is still bottom-of-the-barrel rated against perrenial champion WHIO and perpetual runner up WDTN, it's still there, and the combo has even launched early morning newscasts.

 

[KML0224]

Here in Hartford/New Haven, LIN Broadcasting owns WTNH-TV/DT (ABC) channel 8/D 10 of New Haven. They also have "sister station" WCTX-TV/DT (MY) channel 59/D 39 of New Haven. WTNH produces a 10 PM newscast for WCTX, "NewsChannel 8" graphics and all. This newscast consistently gets creamed by the 10 PM news on WTIC-TV/DT (FOX) channel 61/D 31 of Hartford. The Tribune-owned newscast is usually simulcasted on WTXX-TV/DT (CW) channel 20/D 12 of Waterbury/Hartford. Go back 10 or 11 years ago and channel 20's 10 PM news was produced by WVIT-TV/DT (NBC) channel 30/D 35 of New Britain. (WVIT-TV was then owned by Viacom, while I don't know who was running 20 at that time.)

 

[JeeperOne]

Re: Duopoly Sucks!

Hi everyone:

Funny, because in Jacksonville, Gannett ownes both an ABC and NBC station. At the same time, WJXT Channel 4 in Jacksonville sits with no network affiliation. Current rules prevent one company from owning 2 big fours in a market. Gannett must have a waiver for some reason. Out of fairness for the rules, I think Gannett should be forced to divest one of the networks to WJXT.

You're assuming WJXT is even interested in a network. Remember, they even passed on MyNetwork and The CW!

Cheers

 

[Ultimajock]

...hmmm -- I wonder if this qualifies as a triopoly. In a city the size of La Crosse, I guess it does. Quincy owns both WXOW/19, the ABC affiliate, and W67CH/67, the translator for KTTC/10 Rochester, which serves as the local NBC OTA affiliate (the "official" NBC affiliate for Western Wisconsin, WEAU/13 in Eau Claire, can't be picked up over-the-air in most of La Crosse because of the terrain surrounding the latter city). Quincy also LMAs KXLT/47, Rochester's Fox affiliate. With the overlap in signals between WXOW, KTTC and KXLT -- their physical plants are in Minnesota counties, Olmstead and Houston, separated by only one other, Winona -- that strikes me as being a triopoly...

 

[notalkallstatic]

Duopolies don't suck. Sometimes the way station owners use them sucks.

You might have a point...but I use to work for a Duolopoly, and it does suck, it sucks very much because of the station owner...Nexstar Broadcasting Group! Nexstar is probably the worst duolopoly owner in the U.S.

 

[BDBopper]

Atlanta now has a Gannett Duopoly (NBC WXIA and MyNetwork WATL). WXIA has wanted to cover local events and run other shows, especially evnets that they sponsor but most of the time the channel has been forced to show the network programming instead. Now with a Duopoly they can put the local stuff on WATL. Guess that may the only good thing about the duopoly.

 

[oldschooltv]

Go back 10 or 11 years ago and channel 20's 10 PM news was produced by WVIT-TV/DT (NBC) channel 30/D 35 of New Britain. (WVIT-TV was then owned by Viacom, while I don't know who was running 20 at that time.)

Go back to the early 80s and prior, and greater Waterbury had their own newscast produced right at the (then WATR-TV) studios when it was an NBC affiliate. The Hartford area already had their NBC affiliate (WHNB? 30), and southern Connecticut either watched WNBC or WATR. I'm not from there, but I imagine viewers in eastern CT tuned into the Rhode Island station. This is before WVIT's signal was at full strength and wiped out all the other NBC affiliates. But I have to agree that with the exception of large markets, everyone suffers by duopolies and the homogenization of TV that results. It's often the same product on multiple stations. And nothing is really "local" anymore.

 

[KML0224]

NBC WATR-TV became independent WTXX-TV in the spring of 1982. I believe channel 30 became WVIT-TV around 1978 with the sale to Viacom Broadcasting, Incorporated. Yes, some areas of eastern CT do get WJAR-TV (NBC) channel 10 of Providence either over-the-air and on cable (then and now). Also, depending on what part of Hartford County you're in, you can also get WWLP-TV channel 22, Springfield's NBC affiliate.

 

[lugnuts6]

Lets put it this way ...

*Steps to bullhorn*
ATTENTION STATION OWNERS, IF YOU DO A DUOPOLY AND A NEWS DEPARTMENT IS INVOLVED ..TWO WORDS TO MAKE YOU THINK ABOUT IT!!

REMEMBER DETROIT!

*steps from soap box*

 

[Markxxx]

Well the original intent of allowing duopolies was to keep a failing station from going dark.

Now we run up with a couple of issues. TV needs some sort of regulation. One can argue free market is best, and it probably is but the issue with TV there are not enough allocations to allow a free market.

As you saw with airlines, when they were deregulated a bunch of start ups came in and quickly failed. Which is a good thing, as only by failing can you see what NOT to do.

Now with little regulation you have to main issues with TV. One is the fact if we allow free market, clearly we will have a limited number of stations groups control the TV sector. Which is bad. If we were to stop a duopolies or LMAs what would likely happen is we would see more shop at home 24 hour infomercial stations. As these make money.

It's a shame with digital coming the FCC doesn't redo the whole TV mess, with everything from maximizing allocations to creating regional higher power stations.

HDTV is good for sports and nature shows, but there is little else use for it. I mean are the Simpsons any MORE funny if the show looks clearer? Is Dateline anymore informative if we can see the pours on the guy's face?

This is where the FCC made their issue. They should have concentrated on Digital and since 1 analog station can equal 5 digital station, they should give analogs only one of those five channels and throw open the market.

Then you could have say the high VHFs for networks, and end having affiliates. Just have like ABC be channel 7 and broadcast on channel 7. Local stations would not need to be affilated and could go to UHF.

That is obviously not going to work because local stations would die, but hey they died often in the 50s and 60s, but eventually someone got the programming to be competitive.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Well the original intent of allowing duopolies was to keep a failing station from going dark.

Now we run up with a couple of issues. TV needs some sort of regulation. One can argue free market is best, and it probably is but the issue with TV there are not enough allocations to allow a free market.

As you saw with airlines, when they were deregulated a bunch of start ups came in and quickly failed. Which is a good thing, as only by failing can you see what NOT to do.

Now with little regulation you have to main issues with TV. One is the fact if we allow free market, clearly we will have a limited number of stations groups control the TV sector. Which is bad. If we were to stop a duopolies or LMAs what would likely happen is we would see more shop at home 24 hour infomercial stations. As these make money.

It's a shame with digital coming the FCC doesn't redo the whole TV mess, with everything from maximizing allocations to creating regional higher power stations.

HDTV is good for sports and nature shows, but there is little else use for it. I mean are the Simpsons any MORE funny if the show looks clearer? Is Dateline anymore informative if we can see the pours on the guy's face?

This is where the FCC made their issue. They should have concentrated on Digital and since 1 analog station can equal 5 digital station, they should give analogs only one of those five channels and throw open the market.

Then you could have say the high VHFs for networks, and end having affiliates. Just have like ABC be channel 7 and broadcast on channel 7. Local stations would not need to be affilated and could go to UHF.

That is obviously not going to work because local stations would die, but hey they died often in the 50s and 60s, but eventually someone got the programming to be competitive.

Because ABC got competitive! The advent of cable, the advancement of big media companies owning stations, and UPN and the WB have killed the independent station.

I largely agree here - with the advent of digital, the FCC should go back to no duopolies at all, crack down on Sinclair's use of proxy companies to evade the duopoly rules, and create a climate more conducive to local ownership and a diverse marketplace by helping smaller (CW/My/Pax-scale) stations create locally-oriented shows to help fill a niche. And we need to have better syndicated fare, too - fare that's in syndication not because it's not good enough for broadcast networks or cable, but because the way it works makes it not make sense for broadcast networks or cable. (A lot like My Network TV, actually.)

Even if the big media companies remain huge, and I'm convinced their dominance led to the age of duopolies and not the other way around, there could be more of them. CBS would have to sell its share of the CW, because it wouldn't be able to affiliate any stations with it and CBS is still its cash cow (I suspect, if the CW grows really huge, CBS will start holding it back, to keep it from competing with the Eye). Fox would have to sell its MyNetwork TV O&Os and also probably sell or even shutter the "network" itself. Someone could come along with a lot of money and gobble up formerly-duopoly CW and MyNet stations.

But of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[TexasTom]

Yeah...you could be wrong, or not. But let's face it...you or anyone else here would be hard-pressed to screw it up as badly as the folks that actually have made the decisions in the last 15 years or so. Bluntly, media regulatory (or should I say deregulatory) policy has really stank under both Clinton and Bush -- both of whom have done so much to allow big media to get ever bigger.

I tend to agree with what you said, but would take it even further by splitting up the huge concentrations of commonly owned cable networks, as well as prohibiting using retransmission consent to force carriage of new cable networks.