• 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

iHeartMedia Seeks To Increase Its Foreign Ownership

umfan said:
Why don't you see the Department of Justice seeking to intervene as potentially adverse to iHeart's request?
Click to expand...

Because the DOJ is already investigating the larger picture of Liberty Media buying iHeart. As I said earlier in this thread, I believe it's all related.

www.insideradio.com/free/report-doj...cle_f72ad714-2b0d-11ea-9e7d-2b9b06890c06.html

Their interest may have nothing to do with the foreign ownership issue.

You seem to feel the DOJ has already pre-judged this request for some reason. Perhaps you can explain.

umfan said:
Serious question, do you make comments intending to contradict yourself shortly thereafter?
Click to expand...

The whole idea is hypothetical. So I don't' care if you think it's contradictory.
 
In doing more research on this, I found that the DOJ did the same thing last June when Cumulus made the same request:

http://www.insideradio.com/free/cum...cle_8f60c548-90d6-11e9-b992-8b478fac48a8.html

The second sentence in the article says:

The request isn’t out of the ordinary, since as part of what’s known as the Team Telecom review process it will allow the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense to weigh-in.
Click to expand...

But it says it adds six months to the process.
 
TheBigA said:
Because the DOJ is already investigating the larger picture of Liberty Media buying iHeart. As I said earlier in this thread, I believe it's all related.

www.insideradio.com/free/report-doj...cle_f72ad714-2b0d-11ea-9e7d-2b9b06890c06.html

Their interest may have nothing to do with the foreign ownership issue.

You seem to feel the DOJ has already pre-judged this request for some reason. Perhaps you can explain.



The whole idea is hypothetical. So I don't' care if you think it's contradictory.
Click to expand...

The DOJ responded, directly, to the petition iHeart filed asking the Commission to delay action. I didn't imply DOJ pre-judged it, but they certainly think, as their letter clearly stated, there may be legal and national security issues to sort out. THAT's what I wrote and, unlike you, provided a direct basis for any assertion I made.

As to it being hypothetical, what defines typical is not hypothetical. Typical doesn't apply as you asserted it did. You were wrong and called on it. Whether it's related to the Liberty Media deal or not, DOJ responded directly to the iHeart filing requesting the waiver.

Perhaps you should explain why you're so intent on characterizing something as typical when it clearly is not.
 
umfan said:
Perhaps you should explain why you're so intent on characterizing something as typical when it clearly is not.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should explain why you're so focused on one word in my post, and not the overall context. As I and others have stated, the Commission has approved all recent waivers, and you have provided no examples where they have not. As I documented in post #72, the DOJ wrote the exact same letter to Cumulus, and likely wrote the same letter to Univision. As the linked article states, "the [DOJ] request isn't out of the ordinary..." Stated another way, the DOJ response is typical. But of course, now you'll find a reason to question that statement.

Maybe you should explain what your problem is with iHeart, and why you feel their request should be denied.
 
iHeart wasn't the one who described their request as typical, you were. I asked you to provide other contextual examples. You could not because there aren't any. At that point you could've walked back that this isn't typical, would represent a significant number of broadcast outlets being placed under foreign ownership and this would be a significant change. For whatever reason, you seem to have an issue with actually discussing information you choose to post.

In any case, this extended back and forth has confirmed the facts as I've outlined above. The FCC will delay action, DOJ will do it'sa own review and I predict iHeart will not receive a waiver on foreign ownership limits.
 
umfan said:
iHeart wasn't the one who described their request as typical, you were. I asked you to provide other contextual examples. You could not because there aren't any. At that point you could've walked back that this isn't typical, would represent a significant number of broadcast outlets being placed under foreign ownership and this would be a significant change. For whatever reason, you seem to have an issue with actually discussing information you choose to post.

In any case, this extended back and forth has confirmed the facts as I've outlined above. The FCC will delay action, DOJ will do it'sa own review and I predict iHeart will not receive a waiver on foreign ownership limits.
Click to expand...


The DOJ only intervenes in broadcast station transfers in respect to monopolistic or oligarchic issues, not ownership. The vast majority of broadcast transactions never see any DOJ intervention.

In the case of the recent Boston transfers as part of the CBS station merger, they even offered an opinion on the concentration of sports market programming, motivating spin-offs.

The FCC has approved transactions routinely where foreign interests have taken well over 25% of large station groups as well as tiny groups and single stations.

One of the recent authorization was to a Mexican conglomerate with "tons of media outlets" in its home nation and which was allowed 100% of a set of Texas stations.

Several other authorizations have allowed 100% to go to foreign nationals.

That is, in essence, precedent. It is the example by which other transactions will be judged.

Saying that this is not precedent because there are not many such transactions is not a valid argument. There are very few transactions of any kind in the business because few people want to invest in radio properties today.

In fact, one of the reasons why non-citizens are being allowed in is to open up a new market for stations that go on sale, as not too many domestic companies want them.
 
David, if you can cite me an example where even one quarter of the stations iHeart is seeking to allow MAJORITY foreign ownership have previously been approved in a single transaction, I will concede the point.

Absent that, there is nothing typical about this situation because (1) iHeart is not a historically traditional broadcast company and (2) there never has been a transfer in this regard.

The comment about the DOJ intervention is not hypothetical, their letter advising of their intention to intervene is in the Commission file that I linked to. I'm beginning to wonder if either you or Big A actually followed that link and looked at what has been submitted.
 
There is nothing in the law that says it should be applied disproportionally based on number of stations. Congress took that out of the equation when they put no limits on the number of stations a company could own. So the law needs to be applied fairly regardless of the number of stations. This ownership law specifically refers to an owner, not to stations. The role of the DOJ in this matter isn't unusual. They're doing the same thing with Cumulus. The article I linked said their involvement "isn't out of the ordinary." So I have no reason to believe it means they will deny. There should be a ruling in the Cumulus request very soon, since it was made last June.
 
The law says there will be no majority ownership unless there is a waiver. Period. I find it very telling that, despite all of the dialogue about this being 'typical' not a single decision involving a waiver of this magnitude can be cited. I'll leave it there.
 
umfan said:
The law says there will be no majority ownership unless there is a waiver. Period. I find it very telling that, despite all of the dialogue about this being 'typical' not a single decision involving a waiver of this magnitude can be cited. I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...

Because none "of this magnitude" have ever been requested. Straw man argument. But all previous waivers have been granted.
 
So? Each one is evaluated on the merits. The Commission will have to consider that while evaluating the request. The real straw man argument is you continuing to cite prior approvals when they are so drastically different in scope. Did the prior requests have DOJ intervene? The answer is no. So what is your logic for continuing to cite them when they are so clearly different?
 
That 'article' didn't address a similar circumstance. So the answer, really, is not 'Yes'. Unless you can demonstrate where in another docket the DOJ advised it was going to intervene out of national security concerns. So, again, walk us through the logic of citing examples that are a fraction in scope of the stations involved and where DOJ's stated basis for intervention is similar.
 
umfan said:
That 'article' didn't address a similar circumstance.
Click to expand...

You asked about DOJ intervention. I gave you an example. The DOJ letter to Cumulus gave the same "national security" reasons. Here is what it said:

The Department of Justice has formally asked the Federal Communications Commission to “defer action” on a petition filed by Cumulus Media to increase its foreign ownership level to as much as 100%. The request isn’t out of the ordinary, since as part of what’s known as the Team Telecom review process it will allow the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense to weigh-in. The intra-agency task force analyzes deals for potential risks. “The agencies will review the petition and related materials for national-security, law-enforcement, and public-safety issues,” said DOJ National Security Division attorney Justin Sher in a letter to the FCC.
Click to expand...

The size of the company or number of stations wasn't mentioned by DOJ in either letter to Cumulus or iHeart. But the "stated basis" is the same.
 
The Cumulus petition was filed about a year ago and has yet to be approved. You asserted that these were typically APPROVED. This one, which I agree the intervention basis was the same has NOT yet been approved. For you to validate your assertion you need to document where DOJ intervened on a similar basis and the petition was APPROVED.
 
umfan said:
For you to validate your assertion you need to document where DOJ intervened on a similar basis and the petition was APPROVED.
Click to expand...

No problem. Here's one from last month. You'll see the DOJ "national security" review included at top of page 3:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-135A1.pdf

The FCC liberalized its foreign ownership ruled in 2016. In paragraph two of this article, it says all applications must still go to Team Telecom at the DOJ for a security study.

https://www.fcclawblog.com/2016/10/...oreign-investment-in-u-s-broadcast-licensees/

That means all petitions have undergone this review, including the Univision waiver, granted that year.
 
Still none that are approved at anything near the scale we are discussing. So, yes, no problem, you've made clear you cannot support your assertion. Univision is hardly the same thing. If/when, Cumulus nearly year old petition is approved, you can likely make a case. Further, citing policy put into place back in 2016 under a prior administration as compared to the current one which has made trade and foreign ownership a siren song shows a lack of grasp of the sea change in the application of policy in this regard.
 
You failed to support your assertion and refuse to acknowledge this. Indeed this is the end of the discussion. You should move on.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom