Clear can not own more than 8 stations per market. Since the major markets have many times that number of stations, there is no way to have a monopoly in number of stations.
-
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
KSJO Universal 92.3 to Drop Brokered Programming
- Thread starter Radiomusik
- Start date
Clear can not own more than 8 stations per market. Since the major markets have many times that number of stations, there is no way to have a monopoly in number of stations.
Of course, that only applies in cases of transfers or purchases that would exceed revenue limitations.
Then there are the cases when the DoJ steps in and creates its own view of excessive control. Examples would be the Clear Channel divestitures in Houston and several other markets when the company went private and due to the overlap of the investment banks involved. Or the CBS divestiture in Philadelphia during the consolidation period, also required to meet a DOJ requirement.
They also do not understand that a "big" company is not necessarily a monopoly. But perhaps they don't understand the definitions of monopoly and its related term, oligopoly.
Working under the hypothetical assumption that Cumulus would want a fifth FM frequency -- these limits shouldn't pose all that great of an obstacle.
Option #1: Unload one of the AM stations. This could mean merging the "best" programming from KSFO with the "best" programming from KGO (feel free to insert joke here).
Option #2: Change the city of license for one of the AM stations to a city located outside of the San Francisco MSA.
Option #3 (least likely and might not be feasible): Strike deals with owners of adjacent channels (such as 92.1 Walnut Creek and 92.7 Alameda) to turn in their licenses so that 92.3 could upgrade to a higher FM Class and/or relocate.
If 92.7 (or another station became available, they could lease that station under an LMA to give time to unload one of the AMs.
Point #1: You can't just change the community of license. You have to move the transmitter far enough for it not to be considered part of the immediate market. Point #2: KSJO is a Class B in "B land". There is no higher class, unless you're grandfathered before 1964.
Re:
There are several recent examples that would seem to disprove your assertion, although I will say all of those are FM situations. In these examples, the TX site stayed put. Not sure why the rules would be any different for an AM facility.
Duly noted. However, this in & of itself would not rule out a relocation of the TX site (even though other factors might prevent such a thing from occurring).
There are several recent examples that would seem to disprove your assertion, although I will say all of those are FM situations. In these examples, the TX site stayed put. Not sure why the rules would be any different for an AM facility.
Duly noted. However, this in & of itself would not rule out a relocation of the TX site (even though other factors might prevent such a thing from occurring).
If the station, irrespective of the actual community of license, continues to serve the Nielsen defined metro survey area all or in part with a city grade signal then it is attributed to the market cap for that particular MSA. The San Francisco MSA extends from Santa Clara County all the way up to Santa Rosa.
Re:
I, too, like it when David agrees with something I wrote. So, I could be in trouble here.
I am not going to give up quite yet, though!
Mr. Eduardo -- how do you explain what happened with some of the Aloha Trust stations, if what you wrote is accurate? Take the case of WMAX-FM, licensed to Holland, MI. Both the COL and TX location are physically located within the Grand Rapids, MI Metro Survey Area. It covers much of that market with a theoretical 70 dBu signal or better.
I recall reading a couple years ago that the FCC permitted Clear Channel to reassign that station from the Grand Rapids, MI market to the Muskegon, MI market, which allowed Clear Channel to remove the station from the Aloha Trust and retain it. Clear Channel was even allowed to keep the COL the same. They were required to divest NO stations in either market!!
Two more examples:
--WNEW-FM (the former WHFS) in Maryland: COL was changed from Annapolis (Baltimore market) to Bowie, MD (Washington market)
--WLZL-FM: Construction Permit has been granted to change COL from Annapolis (Baltimore market) to College Park, MD (Washington market), with a seemingly insignificant change in antenna height & power output from existing TX site.
I, too, like it when David agrees with something I wrote. So, I could be in trouble here.
I am not going to give up quite yet, though!
Mr. Eduardo -- how do you explain what happened with some of the Aloha Trust stations, if what you wrote is accurate? Take the case of WMAX-FM, licensed to Holland, MI. Both the COL and TX location are physically located within the Grand Rapids, MI Metro Survey Area. It covers much of that market with a theoretical 70 dBu signal or better.
I recall reading a couple years ago that the FCC permitted Clear Channel to reassign that station from the Grand Rapids, MI market to the Muskegon, MI market, which allowed Clear Channel to remove the station from the Aloha Trust and retain it. Clear Channel was even allowed to keep the COL the same. They were required to divest NO stations in either market!!
Two more examples:
--WNEW-FM (the former WHFS) in Maryland: COL was changed from Annapolis (Baltimore market) to Bowie, MD (Washington market)
--WLZL-FM: Construction Permit has been granted to change COL from Annapolis (Baltimore market) to College Park, MD (Washington market), with a seemingly insignificant change in antenna height & power output from existing TX site.
Last edited:
The cryptic notation I have on my industry source says that the station was allowed back in the Clear Channel portfolio since "compliance with the FCC's multiple ownership rules o longer requires the divestiture of this station"
It appears as attributed to Grand Rapids. I'm guessing that the classification of the market may have changed, increasing market caps... since Clear has 4 FMs and 2 AMs attributed to the market for a total of 6.
While Arbitron / Nielsen market definitions are used by the FCC to attribute stations to individual markets, Arbitron does not determine for the FCC what stations are in each market.
However, if a station, usually a rimshot, decides to focus on serving a different, usually larger, market, they can ask Arbitron to show their home market as the "other" one... but that does not affect the FCC attribution since that is based on geography.
For example, KLYY, licensed to Riverside, CA, asked to have Arbitron consider them home to the Los Angeles market. Despite blanketing the Riverside / San Berdoo market and only covering fragments of the LA market, the owner feels there is more money in an LA rimshot than in the Riverside market. But to the FCC, KLYY is a Riverside / San Bernardino market station.
As I can't immediately find any other data on WMAX, I can't give a real answer... just guesses. But the Wiki listing for WMAX is wrong in saying that changing the "home" market in Arbitron somehow changes the attribution at the FCC. All the FCC uses is the Arbitron market definitions... sets of counties... and not the target of programming.
Here is an interesting analysis from the company which apparently owns Principle:
http://www.mercurycapitalpartners.com/principle-cali-deal-story
http://www.mercurycapitalpartners.com/principle-cali-deal-story
- Status