• 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

FCC chair puts ‘The View’ under the spotlight after Kimmel pressure

TheBigA said:
Keep in mind they’re not a long player in linear TV.
Click to expand...
But for the moment, major market TV is profitable.
TheBigA said:
They could also shop the affiliation as they did in Miami.
Click to expand...
In very few markets are there independent stations ready to build a brand new news department and to cancel their contracts for syndicated show. While Miami was not unique, it is one of the few situations where there was a station "big enough" to step in without losing much market influence.
 
davideduardo said:
In very few markets are there independent stations ready to build a brand new news department and to cancel their contracts for syndicated show. While Miami was not unique, it is one of the few situations where there was a station "big enough" to step in without losing much market influence.
Click to expand...
Why would they have to cancel their content contracts? I know subchannels aren't as glamorous as whole integer brands, but a willing independent station could easily onboard ABC as a .2 channel. I believe this already happens in markets where technical reasons (too few signals for every network) force it to be done. (It's much better, anyway, than in the analog days, when networks like UPN had to settle with being "secondary affiliates" on the same physical channels as competing, larger networks.)

Edit: the ATSC standard also allows a station to make one of its subchannels appear as the .1 of a different virtual base channel number. I.e. physical channel 8, presenting itself as virtual channels 9.1 through 9.5, could also put another subchannel on-air, labeled as 10.1. A willing independent could thus allow ABC to "appear" to be its own station in this way, for branding purposes.

As for creating new news departments, the viability of every channel in a market having its own, independent in-house newscast is already on shaky ground, isn't it? Here in Los Angeles, 2 and 9, and 11 and 13, are already virtual clones. The worst example I'm aware of is what the Hawaiians have been dealing with for over a decade. There, multiple stations, including big three network affiliates, are sharing the same newscast:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_News_Now

In any case, could an ABC .2 (or a "ghost" ABC .1) get by with a newscast produced by another station's news department (preferably one already doing a 10 o'clock for itself, so it could go on-air under different branding at 4/5/6/11)?
 
Last edited:
I think that lawfirm is trying t stir up
Y2kTheNewOldies said:
thedesk.net

Conservative group files FCC complaint against KABC-TV over Kimmel monologue

The complaint filed by the Center for American Rights targets KABC-TV, located in the broadcast market of Disney's corporate headquarters.
thedesk.net thedesk.net

Update a law firm files an FCC complaint against KABC-TV over the Jimmy Kimmel issue, Jimmy Kimmels show is filmed and that Disney’s main office is in Los Angeles. We need to wait for a similar FCC complaint directed at WABC-TV New York over Chairman Carrs beef against The View on ABC and also ABC News main office is in New York.
Click to expand...

I think that law firm is just trying to stir up trouble for Disney and specificly ABC.
 
yeoldeschool said:
Edit: the ATSC standard also allows a station to make one of its subchannels appear as the .1 of a different virtual base channel number. I.e. physical channel 8, presenting itself as virtual channels 9.1 through 9.5, could also put another subchannel on-air, labeled as 10.1. A willing independent could thus allow ABC to "appear" to be its own station in this way, for branding purposes.
Click to expand...
Now you've got my curiosity up. Can any station, assuming that there is no conflict with another station within its broadcast area, pick multiple base channels and assign those to their subchannels as a.1, b.1, c.1, instead of having x.2, x.3, and so on? I know they can do this when they are sharing their signal with another station, but can they do it just of their own accord for marketing purposes?

I know that in Charleston SC, WCIV appears awkwardly as 36.2 (why not swap with ex-WMMP and become 36.1?) while continuing to call themselves "News 4", but they can't use 4.x because of WGWG. If not for that, they could very easily become channel 4.1.
 
What I think about the government trying to get ABC to cancel The View is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
 
yeoldeschool said:
Why would they have to cancel their content contracts? I know subchannels aren't as glamorous as whole integer brands, but a willing independent station could easily onboard ABC as a .2 channel. I believe this already happens in markets where technical reasons (too few signals for every network) force it to be done. (It's much better, anyway, than in the analog days, when networks like UPN had to settle with being "secondary affiliates" on the same physical channels as competing, larger networks.)
Click to expand...
That means, basically, a very expensive startup. The greatest cost is the news complement, which in most markets is where most of the money is made locally.
yeoldeschool said:
Edit: the ATSC standard also allows a station to make one of its subchannels appear as the .1 of a different virtual base channel number. I.e. physical channel 8, presenting itself as virtual channels 9.1 through 9.5, could also put another subchannel on-air, labeled as 10.1. A willing independent could thus allow ABC to "appear" to be its own station in this way, for branding purposes.
Click to expand...
Again, the real issue is not the channel but creating the infrastructure to support the network programming.
yeoldeschool said:
As for creating new news departments, the viability of every channel in a market having its own, independent in-house newscast is already on shaky ground, isn't it? Here in Los Angeles, 2 and 9, and 11 and 13, are already virtual clones. The worst example I'm aware of is what the Hawaiians have been dealing with for over a decade. There, multiple stations, including big three network affiliates, are sharing the same newscast:
Click to expand...
News is the major profit maker for most network affiliate stations, but for very few indies.
 
IM42A said:
Now you've got my curiosity up. Can any station, assuming that there is no conflict with another station within its broadcast area, pick multiple base channels and assign those to their subchannels as a.1, b.1, c.1, instead of having x.2, x.3, and so on? I know they can do this when they are sharing their signal with another station, but can they do it just of their own accord for marketing purposes?

I know that in Charleston SC, WCIV appears awkwardly as 36.2 (why not swap with ex-WMMP and become 36.1?) while continuing to call themselves "News 4", but they can't use 4.x because of WGWG. If not for that, they could very easily become channel 4.1.
Click to expand...

I hate to reply to my own post, but it is no longer open for editing, and I need to clarify something.

Not to be like a pedantic grammar-school teacher who draws the distinction between "can" and "may", but I was looking more for the "may", that is, do FCC rules allow them to do this of their own accord? And does it need to be registered (or whatever the word would be) with the FCC?

I am thinking more of potential conflicts with other stations on the same x.1 channel around the fringes of their coverage area. Some receivers can handle more than one station using the same PSIP channel (whether base channel or subchannel), some cannot.

And as a kind-of-related issue, if stations are allowed to do this, why do the Sinclair stations create the awkwardness of carrying major-network subchannels with which they have some kind of ownership or LMA connection, and have them be the x.2 channel instead of their own native x.1 channel? For instance, WCHS Charleston WV carries Fox on 8.2 but markets it as "Fox 11" with "WCHS 8.2" in the fine print. Why not just use 11.1 and let WVAH be 11.2 for Catchy Comedy, 11.3 The Nest, and so on? The same scenario exists with WSYX Columbus carrying "Fox 28" on 6.3 while WTTE runs Roar on 28.1 with other diginets on subsequent subchannels. If it's a matter of securing must-carry for their presently-x.1 sidecar stations (such as WVAH and WTTE), couldn't they use their clout to insist upon it anyway, "if you don't carry WVAH that has Catchy Comedy on 11.2, you can't carry WCHS with its ABC and Fox programming"? What am I missing here?
 
Last edited:
davideduardo said:
News is the major profit maker for most network affiliate stations, but for very few indies.
Click to expand...
Why? I can only imagine because of the larger audience lead-ins from new (non-rerun) network content immediately preceding their 11 o'clock newscasts. But with most people coming home from work in the late afternoons, there are no network lead-ins for their 4-6 o'clock newscasts being watched.
 
More repubs say that what the FCC Chairman said was "inappropriate"

www.nbcnews.com

Sen. Rand Paul says FCC chair's comments threatening ABC over Jimmy Kimmel were 'absolutely inappropriate'

The Kentucky Republican said Brendan Carr had "no business weighing in" on Kimmel's comments.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Paul also argued that "you can be fired for not being popular."

"This is television for goodness' sakes," he said. "You have to sell sponsorships. You have to sell commercials, and if you're losing money, you can be fired. But the government's got no business in it, and the FCC was wrong to weigh in."
Click to expand...
 
NPR interviewed a communications lawyer about the comments Mr. Carr has made concerning both Jimmy Kimmel and "The View," this morning.


Audio is currently available, and a full transcript should be available later today or tomorrow. While not getting in to specifics of what broadcasters want the FCC to do for them, the lawyer makes it abundantly clear that the comments of Mr. Carr and others in this administration about going after station licenses for broadcasting commentaries the current U.S. President doesn't like is a violation of not only the U.S. Constitution but also of the 1934 Communications Act that created the FCC in the first place.
 
IM42A said:
Now you've got my curiosity up. Can any station, assuming that there is no conflict with another station within its broadcast area, pick multiple base channels and assign those to their subchannels as a.1, b.1, c.1, instead of having x.2, x.3, and so on? I know they can do this when they are sharing their signal with another station, but can they do it just of their own accord for marketing purposes?
Click to expand...
I don't know the answer to that question. https://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=station_search&callsign=63865#station is an example of a signal doing what I described in my previous post. It is on physical 24, virtual 30.1 through 30.8, and virtual 64.1, without any other 64.x virtual channels coming from other physical transmitters within the market. 64 is licensed as KILM, and 30 as KPXN. So while this example appears to be a transmitter sharing agreement between two distinct licensees, it at least demonstrates that it's possible and allowed to transmit a second base channel number from transmitter A even when there is no transmitter B transmitting additional subchannels for that second base channel.

In any case, it's only one more step from there to being the same licensee existing on two or more virtual base channels. I have always thought that a distinct license is only required to exist as a single physical facility, on a single physical channel. But that's only my speculation.
 
Last edited:
ted chittenden said:
While not getting in to specifics of what broadcasters want the FCC to do for them, the lawyer makes it abundantly clear that the comments of Mr. Carr and others in this administration about going after station licenses for broadcasting commentaries the current U.S. President doesn't like is a violation of not only the U.S. Constitution but also of the 1934 Communications Act that created the FCC in the first place.
Click to expand...

Then again, Carr took no action. He only made a statement. That's the Carr way. He started a bunch of very questionable investigations. None have resulted in anything. I think the only action he's taken was with CBS, and it was with a willing partner.
 
ted chittenden said:
the lawyer makes it abundantly clear that the comments of Mr. Carr and others in this administration about going after station licenses for broadcasting commentaries the current U.S. President doesn't like is a violation of not only the U.S. Constitution but also of the 1934 Communications Act that created the FCC in the first place.
Click to expand...
Does the current administration care about following the Constitution or laws enacted by Congress? It doesn’t appear so.
 
Larry said:
Does the current administration care about following the Constitution or laws enacted by Congress? It doesn’t appear so.
Click to expand...

The view seems to be (and Carr says it as well) that laws and the constitution are subject to interpretation. That's why Carr brings up the "public interest" standard. He feels he can play around with what that means. Given the supreme court, it seems they have a point.
 
A slippery slope where the FCC is going and once a new president comes in 2029 maybe on the other side will go after FOX and other consverative media which is wrong on so many levels. I didn't watch Kimmel or any late night talk show I wasn't into them when I was a teen in the 90s when it was Leno & Letterman.

Sometime this week ABC & Jimmy Kimmel come to some type of an agreement as Jimmy Kimmel doesn't want to give Trump a win. I think that Kimmel was going to end his show once his deal was to end in Dec 2026 I believe, I could be wrong on that.
 
DavinaR said:
Its good to see someone else in the GOP being against the FCC chair besides Ted Cruze. I hope more speak out against what he said as well.
Click to expand...
Oh Lord, I'm revokoking both-sides Ted's 24-hour pass to the ANTIFA club house with "I'm glad he's off the air but it shouldn't have been by jackboots. Head back to Cancun,and hope Donnie doesn't turn your passport card off.
 


Back
Top Bottom