Fox Threatening to Dump Some Local Affiliates

[azumanga]

if FOX kills the affiliation agreement with stations in certain markets, and can't find other broadcast affiliates willing to pay them, then they could move to a cable-only distribution model in those markets.

In other words -- a resurrection of "Foxnet", a cable-only Fox network that ended in 2006.

 

[dave73]

So another "big switch" is about to occur in the 2010s, huh?

I don't see this happening in the top 3 markets, as they're Fox O&O, but markets like nearby South Bend Indiana could possibly see WSJV going back with ABC if they lost their Fox affiliation. I know ABC would want WSJV to carry their network, as it covers the entire market vs. WBND-LD. Milwaukee would be another one that could see a change if WITI (ironically, WITI was a Fox O&O for a few years until 2 or 3 years ago) wouldn't cough up the extra money. If that happened, would they try to steal the CBS affiliation from WDJT? I don't know, but CBS would probably like to see WITI as the CBS affiliate, as they're more established in the market than WDJT is. Tribune owns the Fox affiliates in Grand Rapids & Indianapolis, & not sure which station could possibly affiliate with them if WXMI (Grand Rapids) & WXIN (Indianapolis) lost their Fox affiliations. These stations could go independent if that happened.

 

[bpatrick]

I don't see WGHP (another former Fox o&o) going back to ABC.
Its promos say it's the highest-rated Fox station in the country
(it has certainly done better with Fox than it did with ABC), and
it has three things people around here will watch: NASCAR, the
Atlanta Braves (when Fox has them on Saturdays during baseball
season), and--despite that miserable 2-14 record this year--the
Carolina Panthers, who still manage to draw the highest ratings
for sports telecasts during football season. And I don't think
they'd be willing to move their 10 PM newscast back to 11, nor
give up four hours of syndicated shows to "The View" and the
ABC soaps.

I'd be happier if there was any truth to the rumor about CBS
buying WAGA.

 

[firepoint525]

CW and My TV stations would probably be happy to pay the Fox fees.

Here in Nashville, the CW affiliate is a sister station to the Fox affiliate, so I wouldn't look for any changes of that nature here.

 

[KeithE4]

Tribune owns the Fox affiliates in Grand Rapids & Indianapolis, & not sure which station could possibly affiliate with them if WXMI (Grand Rapids) & WXIN (Indianapolis) lost their Fox affiliations. These stations could go independent if that happened.

Fox will be in a bit of a bind in Indy, since Tribune owns the only commercial stations (WTTK and WXIN) not affiliated with CBS, NBC, or ABC that transmit from the city. I don't see WISH, WTHR, or WRTV dropping those networks anytime soon.

Would WNDY be an option since they have the same problem as WTTV, having to put a city-grade signal into a city 50 miles away?

 

[anotherguyTN]

In Jackson, TN if WJKT lost Fox, I'd like to see them go back to being an independent, although that would probably only affect prime time and weekend afternoons with Major League Baseball, NASCAR, or NFL Football.

 

[ding12]

My thinking here is that they're not happy with some of the station groups (Sinclair) who aren't doing much to serve the viewers. For example, WUTV dropped the news programs a few years ago. They used to be a famous station when they were independent. Fox could make a deal with LIN TV to put the affiliation towards either a subchannel of WIVB or replace The CW at WNLO. However, that's just my speculation.

I doubt that, personally. I think what this equates to is broadcast revenue being down while cable revenue is up. They see this as unfair, because cable has an unfair advantage in that it can ask for subscriber fees. What Fox is doing is just saying "fine, we agree that you should demand these retransmission fees, but the only reason you can get them is because of us, so we want a cut".

The earlier poster was right though. All it means are higher cable fees for those of us who still subscribe. Whoever sold the American people down the river on retransmission consent should be immediately ejected from DC. I understand that it puts them at an "unfair advantage" but cable tv networks have an unfair advantage too, being that you have to pay to see them.

Sinclair is one of the larger affiliate groups. After that all the Fox O&Os (which are many), and Sinclair affiliates, KTVU, WSVN, the Tribune affiliates, how many big affiliate groups or important single affiliates of Fox are there?

Also with the whole cable having an unfair advantage, well Fox owns a number of cable networks including FX and Fox News Channel. Those certainly aren't hurting. NewsCorp puts more investment into FX than say MyNetwork TV.

 

[Tim from Springfield IL]

My thinking here is that they're not happy with some of the station groups (Sinclair) who aren't doing much to serve the viewers. For example, WUTV dropped the news programs a few years ago. They used to be a famous station when they were independent. Fox could make a deal with LIN TV to put the affiliation towards either a subchannel of WIVB or replace The CW at WNLO. However, that's just my speculation.

If Fox follows on their threat, could the Peoria/Bloomington market in central Illinois witness a "big switch," since their Fox affiliate (WYZZ-43) is owned by Sinclair and their news is produced by CBS affiliate WMBD-31 (a Nexstar station--the horror of a market where Nexstar and Sinclair own stations!).

I could also see ABC using this situation to dump their longtime Peoria market affiliation with perennial third-place station WHOI-19 and moving perhaps to WYZZ in the process if the latter lost Fox (particularly with Barrington-owned WHOI being operated by Granite, who owns NBC affiliate WEEK-25, in a joint agreement making WHOI and WEEK sister stations).

Or even My "affiliate" WAOE-59 could be a possibliity for either an alternate Fox or ABC affiliate in Peoria (WAOE is owned by Four Seasons Broadcasting but is also operated by Granite with WEEK and WHOI).

 

[DToTheJ]

CBS would probably like to see WITI as the CBS affiliate, as they're more established in the market than WDJT is...

Channel 6 vs. Channel 58 - gee, ya think?

By the way, ask CBS how they like their Detroit (channel 62) station. (Yes, I know, channel positions don't matter much in the post-analog age... but in the grand scheme of things...)

 

[landtuna]

Channel 6 vs. Channel 58 - gee, ya think?

By the way, ask CBS how they like their Detroit (channel 62) station. (Yes, I know, channel positions don't matter much in the post-analog age... but in the grand scheme of things...)

Based on the digital issues with VHF I'd think they would be in a better position on UHF.

 

[MattParker]

By the way, ask CBS how they like their Detroit (channel 62) station. (Yes, I know, channel positions don't matter much in the post-analog age... but in the grand scheme of things...)

At least network shows are not getting preempted left and right the way channel 2 (and all Storer stations) used to do.

 

[KeithE4]

CBS would probably like to see WITI as the CBS affiliate, as they're more established in the market than WDJT is...

Channel 6 vs. Channel 58 - gee, ya think?

By the way, ask CBS how they like their Detroit (channel 62) station. (Yes, I know, channel positions don't matter much in the post-analog age... but in the grand scheme of things...)

The actual RF channel doesn't matter, but the PSIP channel number certainly does, and being 13.x or lower is still an advantage since most people's mindset is that 2 thru 13 are VHF, even when they're probably not anymore. 6.1 beats 58.1 even if their RF channels are both UHF.

I don't think the FCC is allowing PSIP changes to existing stations, so I'd be surprised if WDJT were able to change from 58.x to, say, 8.x (the only "VHF" number not in use in Milwaukee, Chicago, Madison, Rockford, or Green Bay, and Grand Rapids is far enough away to avoid conflicts) even if they wanted to.

 

[Iowan]

I don't know which stations are in danger, but I for one can only hope that the Quad Cities doesn't become one of affected areas. There's not too many options here if KLJB could no longer call themselves 'Fox 18'. The viable options are as follows...

1. WBQD which could keep My Network TV which is co-owned with Fox (However, this is a low-power station and is NOT available on DirecTV or Dish Network)

2. Another station setting up a subchannel for Fox (However, every TV station in the QCA has at least one)

3. KLJB exchanging networks with another station

4. There was supposed to be a Galesburg-ID'd UPN channel 53 come September 2001, but a petition by KLJB's owners blocked the sign-on at the last minute (I personally hope this station makes good on it's CP and FINALLY start operating by 2012 so it could become Fox if necessary)

 

[w9wi]

CBS would probably like to see WITI as the CBS affiliate, as they're more established in the market than WDJT is...

Channel 6 vs. Channel 58 - gee, ya think?

By the way, ask CBS how they like their Detroit (channel 62) station. (Yes, I know, channel positions don't matter much in the post-analog age... but in the grand scheme of things...)

Channel 58 in Milwaukee is working out a lot better than channel 62 in Detroit!

WDJT has a pretty credible newscast. They're not touching 4 or 12 in the ratings but for a newcomer they're doing pretty well.

The actual RF channel doesn't matter, but the PSIP channel number certainly does, and being 13.x or lower is still an advantage since most people's mindset is that 2 thru 13 are VHF, even when they're probably not anymore. 6.1 beats 58.1 even if their RF channels are both UHF.

I don't think the FCC is allowing PSIP changes to existing stations, so I'd be surprised if WDJT were able to change from 58.x to, say, 8.x (the only "VHF" number not in use in Milwaukee, Chicago, Madison, Rockford, or Green Bay, and Grand Rapids is far enough away to avoid conflicts) even if they wanted to.

Does the UHF mindset apply to younger viewers? For something like 20 years, most viewers have had cable and don't even know which stations are UHF. It's been about 30 years that for the most part, UHF stations have been able to match VHFs for picture quality and have had plenty of signal to adequately cover the city and adjoining suburbs where almost everyone lives.

I clearly remember the days of inferior signals, inferior quality, and inferior programming on UHF. (I still watched) But I'm 52.

I could see 58.1 being a problem if there was a 7.1 and 8.1 and 9.1 and 11.1 and 13.1 and 14.1 and 15.1 and ..... Milwaukee has quite a few OTA stations but it doesn't have *that* many. (58 might actually be better than, say, 12.. If you're using your channel-up and channel-down buttons, 58 is adjacent to channel 4, only one button-press required. Channel 12 requires 3 pushes, until WMKE gets around to lighting up their digital signal & you have to skip channel 7 too) If you're direct-entering channel digits, there's no difference between channel 12 and channel 58, either one requires 2-4 presses.

At least on analog cable, WDJT isn't channel 58. It's channel 5. (again, maybe the best place to be, right next to channel 4) I don't know anyone with a digital cable box in Milwaukee, don't know what channel they're on there. They do suffer a bit for people using clearQAM (HDTV connected directly to the cable) where they're 58.1 and all those channels 12-57 are occupied. But since TW subscribers generally don't know about clearQAM I don't think that makes much difference

I've heard of stations getting waivers to use the "wrong" major virtual channel. Not so sure the FCC would buy competitive issues as a reason to allow it.

 

[azumanga]

Channel 58 in Milwaukee is working out a lot better than channel 62 in Detroit!

WDJT has a pretty credible newscast. They're not touching 4 or 12 in the ratings but for a newcomer they're doing pretty well.

As long as they learn to keep the news truck off the ice. ;D

 

[KeithE4]

Does the UHF mindset apply to younger viewers? For something like 20 years, most viewers have had cable and don't even know which stations are UHF. It's been about 30 years that for the most part, UHF stations have been able to match VHFs for picture quality and have had plenty of signal to adequately cover the city and adjoining suburbs where almost everyone lives.

Are younger viewers watching OTA TV? I would guess not, although that may change in the near future. Most OTA viewers are either low-income or older folks like me who either can't afford cable, or just got disgusted with cable and its high cost (I am one of the latter). In both cases, we're not the folks that advertisers are looking for, so the stations/networks don't really care if we're watching or not. We're only about 15% of the total viewership and are mostly outside of The Sacred Sales DemoTM.

But with online viewing on the rise, maybe more folks will cut the cable company's TV package (but keep the internet service) and go with an antenna for local stuff. If the younger generation begins to watch via antenna, the stations will care about their OTA signals more than they do now. And I really don't think they care very much at the present time.

 

[landtuna]

Are younger viewers watching OTA TV?

My family had that very discussion several weeks ago. Out of three boys (35, 31 and 24) and two girls (23 and 21) only the youngest girl watches TV in any quantity, probably because she has much more free time than any of the others. Second to her would be the 24-YO boy who watches ION and MNTV reruns (Simpsons, Family Guy etc.) but usually only when he's chowing down. Otherwise all of them spend most of their viewing time on the Internet or they watch movies on DVD.

 

[KeithE4]

Otherwise all of them spend most of their viewing time on the Internet or they watch movies on DVD.

So does this 55-year-old geezer who only watches the local channels for news and sports. Everything else I watch is online or DVD. I kinda miss cable during the college basketball regular season, but that'll be over in about a month.

 

[KML0224]

Is there any way to find out if the contract of a given FOX affiliate is close to expiring? I doubt that a switch would ever occur here. I live in the Hartford/New Haven market. WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford is one of the few FOX affiliates outside of the O & O's which have been with the network since it started in 1986.

WVIT-TV (NBC) channel 30 of New Britain/Hartford has been an NBC affiliate since their 1953 sign-on. All that's changed are their call letters and owner (presently owned by NBC/Universal/Comcast).

The last network switch we had in this market was the swap between channel 20 of Waterbury, switching from UPN to WB, and channel 59 of New Haven, switching from WB to UPN. That was at the beginning of 2001. Today those stations are WCCT-TV (CW) channel 20 and WCTX-TV (MY) channel 59.

 

[radiolives]

Is there any way to find out if the contract of a given FOX affiliate is close to expiring? I doubt that a switch would ever occur here. I live in the Hartford/New Haven market. WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 of Hartford is one of the few FOX affiliates outside of the O & O's which have been with the network since it started in 1986.

WVIT-TV (NBC) channel 30 of New Britain/Hartford has been an NBC affiliate since their 1953 sign-on. All that's changed are their call letters and owner (presently owned by NBC/Universal/Comcast).

The last network switch we had in this market was the swap between channel 20 of Waterbury, switching from UPN to WB, and channel 59 of New Haven, switching from WB to UPN. That was at the beginning of 2001. Today those stations are WCCT-TV (CW) channel 20 and WCTX-TV (MY) channel 59.

If FOX left WTIC-TV the only place I could see FOX ending up is over at WCTX thats if Lin TV would want FOX. Then I wonder what woudl happen to WTIC-TV. Indepenant for the Hartford and New Haven market.