I supported my assertion with multiple examples where the FCC has approved foreign ownership, including the one in post #37 with the DOJ approval. You have not given a single example where the FCC has denied this waiver.
-
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
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
I supported my assertion with multiple examples where the FCC has approved foreign ownership, including the one in post #37 with the DOJ approval. You have not given a single example where the FCC has denied this waiver.
The only reason why there has been no "news" on this subject is that nobody really wants to invest large amounts in radio today. But there is ample precedent, including allowing 100% foreign ownership, should a transfer application be filed.
If anything, I believe a case could be made for allowing whatever percentage of foreign investment in radio properties. Especially these strange days where US companies are staying clear of traditional media, and this Coronavirus thing is absolutely crushing radio as we type.
The original premise for the old rule, was the risk of using US stations to push foreign propaganda. Fast forward to the early 2000's; now you have entire networks popping up like CCTV, AlJazeera and RTV, which are not only 100% funded by (what could be considered) hostile foreign governments, but are openly pushing what could be considered propaganda. In this World-Wide-Web information and entertainment world, the Commission is well aware that the old ownership laws don't really apply anymore.
The original premise for the old rule, was the risk of using US stations to push foreign propaganda. Fast forward to the early 2000's; now you have entire networks popping up like CCTV, AlJazeera and RTV, which are not only 100% funded by (what could be considered) hostile foreign governments, but are openly pushing what could be considered propaganda. In this World-Wide-Web information and entertainment world, the Commission is well aware that the old ownership laws don't really apply anymore.
The case was made by Pandora that public companies can't require stockholders to be US citizens, and they don't know what percentage of their stockholders are foreign. That opens up a huge problem in an industry that has a foreign ownership rule.
If the FCC and DOJ are concerned about foreign propaganda, they can simply deny the specific license transfer when it comes up for approval, rather than using a blanket foreign ownership rule.
It's not just foreign propaganda, but being able to leverage the and control the broadcast operations in time of national emergency. There are a lot of factors to consider.
Denial Example 1:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357087A1.pdf
Example 2:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-11-30-1994334027-story.html
Foreign ownership of Fox was a major consideration in it's owner applying for an being granted US Citizenship.
Denial Example 3:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-01-09-mn-14117-story.html
Game.Set.Match.
Not exactly. I gave six recent examples of approval. You gave two examples of denial. The China example wasn't for broadcast.
As I said earlier, the foreign ownership rules were changed four years ago. All of my examples are under the new rules.
As for the Murdoch case, the current rules would not have required all the changes he made in 1986. In fact his son Lachlan, who currently runs the company, isn't an American citizen.
Here's an article about how the foreign ownership rules were changed and how they related to Rupert Murdoch:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...to-change-his-citizenship-to-rule-the-tv-biz/
Game.Done.Lost
The fist listing is not for TV or radio. It is irrelevant now and always.
The SIN, now Univision, incident had to do with "suspected" control of SIN. It was resolved by the 1986 sale of SIN to Hallmark (the card and Christmas Movie company) and a renaming to Univision.
The transaction and settlement occurred 35 years ago. It is irrelevant now. Univision is now nearly 40% owned by Televisa.
The Murdock deal occurred 24 years ago. That is a quarter century. The rules have changed in the last decade, and they now reflect the fact that the ownership of RF broadcast stations is continually a lesser influence in the media landscape; as the internet, cable and other alternative distribution systems like satellite radio and TV, have expanded... or "exploded" if you run the numbers... foreign ownership of the stations on the limited AM, FM and TV spectrum areas seems far less important.
Further, now that so much of the equity market is owned through mutual funds, it is obvious that the investments in those funds may be significantly in the hands of non-US citizens. So, without direct reporting ability, there may be many public companies that own radio and TV stations that have very significant foreign ownership. The FCC has seen this uncontrollable situation and adjusted to it. The attempt by one of the "new media" companies to buy a station in the Dakotas (to save on performance rights) brought this to light and provoked the subsequent relaxation of the restrictions.
Thus the pre-2010 attitudes are today totally irrelevant and there is significant precedent for total foreign ownership of electronic media.
My point in all of this, David, was to make clear that these petitions are not 'typical' as BigA asserted, and could not back up and therefore predicting their outcome is therefore difficult. There simply has not been enough of these requests adjudicated to make the sweeping assertion that they are typical. I have more than made that case. Cumulus made the ask almost a year ago, with no approval. Trying to cite Pandora's request for a single station is a more ridiculous comparison to the examples I presented. Approval is not typical and, with the current administration, is less likely to be so.
Your assertion here, "Further, now that so much of the equity market is owned through mutual funds, it is obvious that the investments in those funds may be significantly in the hands of non-US citizens. So, without direct reporting ability, there may be many public companies that own radio and TV stations that have very significant foreign ownership. The FCC has seen this uncontrollable situation and adjusted to it. The attempt by one of the "new media" companies to buy a station in the Dakotas (to save on performance rights) brought this to light and provoked the subsequent relaxation of the restrictions."
What is your basis for that? I again ask you to document an approval that proves this out? Is there one? If so, cite it. Nothing Big A has desperately tried to pull out as supporting his assertion, or the one you've made here fits the bill. If you can't then agree with me that we won't know until the FCC decides the Cumulus or iHeart cases.
Your assertion here, "Further, now that so much of the equity market is owned through mutual funds, it is obvious that the investments in those funds may be significantly in the hands of non-US citizens. So, without direct reporting ability, there may be many public companies that own radio and TV stations that have very significant foreign ownership. The FCC has seen this uncontrollable situation and adjusted to it. The attempt by one of the "new media" companies to buy a station in the Dakotas (to save on performance rights) brought this to light and provoked the subsequent relaxation of the restrictions."
What is your basis for that? I again ask you to document an approval that proves this out? Is there one? If so, cite it. Nothing Big A has desperately tried to pull out as supporting his assertion, or the one you've made here fits the bill. If you can't then agree with me that we won't know until the FCC decides the Cumulus or iHeart cases.
You're mischaracterizing what I said. I didn't say the petitions were typical. I said they were typically approved. I gave recent examples where the petitions were approved. Other people have given additional examples where they were approved. I even gave an example of a petition approved by both the FCC and DOJ under this current administration.
The only examples you can cite of petitions denied were over 20 years old, before the rules changed.
And just within the last few months the Commission approved the purchase of a number of Texas border stations by a large media company from Nuevo Leon state in Mexico. It's not a single owner like the ones in AK and FL... it is a huge Mexican media conglomerate with dozens of stations there.
At this point, it is rather easy to say that the precedent has been set.
The only case that might be made, today, is restricting ownership to foreign nationals of nations that are not our "friends" such as China or North Korea. Even then, a national of one of those nations could claim that they were in the US to escape those systems.
And as I said, that can be made during normal license approval procedure. If ownership in fact changes, the companies will have to get approval once again from the FCC and DOJ. There is nothing in either the Cumulus or iHeart applications that indicate anything like that. It wouldn't be unusual for the DOJ to approve with certain conditions. And even if the FCC denies the ownership, those countries can simply buy time for their programming on existing licensed stations. We already have several stations doing that now.
You're seriously going to say that Univision didn't have unique aspects as compared to iHeart or Cumulus? Even with that, the approval involved a small fraction of the broadcast outlets being requested in these other cases. I'll take your response as you have no citation on a scale of what Cumulus or iHeart is requesting. You couldn't, because such an approval has never been considered.
You have no citation that "scale" is a factor in the decision. In fact, it was Congressionally approved ownership laws that created the scale in the first place. If foreign ownership constitutes a security issue, it's an issue regardless of the number of outlets.
Univision is an American company... going back to being owned by Hallmark Cards, and then a public corporation up until it went private earlier in this century.
To the FCC, Univision is no different that iHeart, the old CBS that had both radio and TV, and any other broadcaster. There is nothing in the FCC rules that separates Spanish language... or any other language... stations from general market English language stations.
In fact, I am still asking myself how Univision is, as a corporation and licensee, any different from any other group broadcaster. I fail to find any legal difference.
In fact, with radio and TV, nearly all in huge markets, Univision has greater revenue than most of the pure radio companies.
So, other than it being so large, there is absolutely nothing unique or different between Univision and other larger broadcasters.
In FCC "administrative law" (a legal term that even includes a court system with hearings, etc.) uses prior decisions by the Commission as precedent for future decisions, petitions, hearings, etc. There is now ample precedent for foreign ownership, both by foreign citizens resident in the US and foreign corporations based outside the US which are expanding into the US with station ownership.
The fact that the FCC has given 100% foreign ownership authorizations at all is precedent. There is absolutely no reason to think that this is not a blanket policy now, with the only difference being that each one needs a specific waiver grant. But each sale requires FCC approval anyway, so there is no change.
This raises some questions:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/se...hal-wife-bought-iheartmedia-stock-51585674573
While Sen. Richard Blumenthal's office claims he has no knowledge these purchases made from an account allegedly only controlled by his wife, the purchase does raise questions particularly when iHeart is seeking regulatory relief from foreign ownership limits.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/se...hal-wife-bought-iheartmedia-stock-51585674573
While Sen. Richard Blumenthal's office claims he has no knowledge these purchases made from an account allegedly only controlled by his wife, the purchase does raise questions particularly when iHeart is seeking regulatory relief from foreign ownership limits.
What questions does it raise?
Cynthia Blumenthal, his wife, is an active investor and is worth just south of $100,000,000. If you look at the required filings, she buys and sells in the millions each quarter. The iHeart investment is a very small part of her portfolio.
There is a lot of speculation that those that buy in the $10 range may be rewarded based on the possibility that the group may be sold and become part of the Liberty Media group of companies.
Last edited:
Not aware that one Senator has any say over what the DOJ or the FCC does.
That the Sen could be using his elected position to influence approval. The Ethics rules require even the avoidance of an appearance of impropriety, and this fails that test. The question is obvious. I didn't say he actually was being lobbied, only that it raises questions. It does, legitimate ones. Public servants need to forfeit certain things, this is one of them.
- Status