Local TV Station Selloff Guesses

[Morgan Wick]

Am I alone in thinking that the duopoly rule needs to be revisited? After all, it was created in the NTSC days, when one TV channel was actually one TV channel. With the ATSC broadcast system each station can have as many as four sub-channels, all within the space of a single "channel" allocation. In this environment, owning two stations in one market can give an organization as many as eight distinct channels. So, how many stations/channels in a single market does one organization need to own?

Agree completely. At the VERY least I would require that owners show that they're using enough of their spectrum to need another station. These days, spectrum is too valuable to let one owner have two channels' worth of it too easily.

 

[SixtiesGuy]

Am I alone in thinking that the duopoly rule needs to be revisited? After all, it was created in the NTSC days, when one TV channel was actually one TV channel. With the ATSC broadcast system each station can have as many as four sub-channels, all within the space of a single "channel" allocation. In this environment, owning two stations in one market can give an organization as many as eight distinct channels. So, how many stations/channels in a single market does one organization need to own?

Agree completely. At the VERY least I would require that owners show that they're using enough of their spectrum to need another station. These days, spectrum is too valuable to let one owner have two channels' worth of it too easily.

A great point. For example, the CBS O&O in Boston, WBZ, owns (virtual) channels 4 & 38, but only uses the prime channel (4.1 and 38.1) for each. A serious waste of spectrum, considering that a station in the neighboring Providence market is stuck with a VHF frequency that is less-well-suited to digital broadcasting. The programming on 38 is of sufficiently low quality that an SD channel would be more than adequate for it. Perhaps it and other duopoly holders are patiently waiting to lease out their unused capacity for other services. If the FCC eliminated the duopoly rule it could go a long way to consolidating the use of spectrum for OTA TV, thus freeing up much-needed bandwidth for other services. I'm certainly a free-market advocate, but I'm sure OTA outlets would do just fine with just one channel (actually four) in each market...and that certainly goes for PBS stations as well.

 

[mescutia]

A great point. For example, the CBS O&O in Boston, WBZ, owns (virtual) channels 4 & 38, but only uses the prime channel (4.1 and 38.1) for each. A serious waste of spectrum, considering that a station in the neighboring Providence market is stuck with a VHF frequency that is less-well-suited to digital broadcasting. The programming on 38 is of sufficiently low quality that an SD channel would be more than adequate for it. Perhaps it and other duopoly holders are patiently waiting to lease out their unused capacity for other services. If the FCC eliminated the duopoly rule it could go a long way to consolidating the use of spectrum for OTA TV, thus freeing up much-needed bandwidth for other services. I'm certainly a free-market advocate, but I'm sure OTA outlets would do just fine with just one channel (actually four) in each market...and that certainly goes for PBS stations as well.

In that case, what do you think should happen to WGBX (44)?

 

[Morgan Wick]

Am I alone in thinking that the duopoly rule needs to be revisited? After all, it was created in the NTSC days, when one TV channel was actually one TV channel. With the ATSC broadcast system each station can have as many as four sub-channels, all within the space of a single "channel" allocation. In this environment, owning two stations in one market can give an organization as many as eight distinct channels. So, how many stations/channels in a single market does one organization need to own?

Agree completely. At the VERY least I would require that owners show that they're using enough of their spectrum to need another station. These days, spectrum is too valuable to let one owner have two channels' worth of it too easily.

A great point. For example, the CBS O&O in Boston, WBZ, owns (virtual) channels 4 & 38, but only uses the prime channel (4.1 and 38.1) for each. A serious waste of spectrum, considering that a station in the neighboring Providence market is stuck with a VHF frequency that is less-well-suited to digital broadcasting. The programming on 38 is of sufficiently low quality that an SD channel would be more than adequate for it. Perhaps it and other duopoly holders are patiently waiting to lease out their unused capacity for other services. If the FCC eliminated the duopoly rule it could go a long way to consolidating the use of spectrum for OTA TV, thus freeing up much-needed bandwidth for other services. I'm certainly a free-market advocate, but I'm sure OTA outlets would do just fine with just one channel (actually four) in each market...and that certainly goes for PBS stations as well.

Done right, the spectrum auction and repack could help with that.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Cox Cable isn't in KC, but it is in almost every other major city in Kansas outside the KC market. IIRC they aren't in Emporia and in the Wichita/Hutchinson market they only big towns they aren't in are Hays and Liberal.

Unless it's consolidated more since I left, cable in KC was always a hodgepodge as more people live in surrounding communities than in KC itself. You could move two miles and be in a completely different city with a completely different cable company. However, as far as I know, Cox has never operated in any of the five metro KC counties.

By the way, hope you're doing well in Hutch! I don't think I've talked to you since I left KC, and July marks a dozen years since I officially left town!

KC area is mostly Time Warner, the rest Comcast

 

[searadiofreak]

I'm not sure anyone has mentioned Fisher Broadcasting, which owns KOMO (ABC) Seattle, KATU (ABC Portland), and KREM (CBS) in Spokane, plus a number of smaller market TV stations, some in duopoly. This group is definitely for sale and who is likely to buy in?

 

[FightingIrish]

Back to the topic, I was wondering myself what company would actually buy all or a chunk of Local TV. I can't see them sell off the whole thing, unless it's to other venture capitalists with no other interests in TV. Then, there would likely be no issues with cross-ownership, network affiliation changes, etc.

Living in a market with one of the affected stations (WITI), I cannot see Sinclair buying it. They already have a lot invested in WVTV/WCGV, and are even in the process of moving them into a new facility. Forget about using one of their shell companies to buy it -- the FCC is already growing suspicious of this loophole. Plus, I'd hate to see Sinclair buy WITI. The local news product will likely go right into the toilet.

I don't see Nexstar buying in either. They're mostly in smaller markets, are too cheap and have a spotty relationship with FOX.

Pappas? Yuck. Are they still even around? Supposedly, they own a station that recently moved in to the market that nobody can even pick up five miles from the transmitter (broadcasting digital on ch. 5 is just not a good idea -- WMVS has a hard time with it on ch. 8).

I wouldn't mind, however, a reputable company like Scripps, Belo or Post-Newsweek coming in to town. At least they look at broadcast properties as more than commodities to collect.

Could FOX come back in to the picture and buy WITI, WJW, etc.? I wouldn't be surprised, even without a duopoly possible.

As for affiliation changes, unless ABC/CBS/NBC are buying them, don't hold your breath. Especially with the FOX stations. FOX affiliates make a lot of money, and have more available local slots available to station owners than the Big 3. They have the benefit of having an affiliation with a strong network with great sports contracts, but without having to clear most of their daytime, late prime time and late night schedules.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Is Cumulus interested in getting into TV?

 

[SixtiesGuy]

A great point. For example, the CBS O&O in Boston, WBZ, owns (virtual) channels 4 & 38, but only uses the prime channel (4.1 and 38.1) for each. A serious waste of spectrum, considering that a station in the neighboring Providence market is stuck with a VHF frequency that is less-well-suited to digital broadcasting. The programming on 38 is of sufficiently low quality that an SD channel would be more than adequate for it. Perhaps it and other duopoly holders are patiently waiting to lease out their unused capacity for other services. If the FCC eliminated the duopoly rule it could go a long way to consolidating the use of spectrum for OTA TV, thus freeing up much-needed bandwidth for other services. I'm certainly a free-market advocate, but I'm sure OTA outlets would do just fine with just one channel (actually four) in each market...and that certainly goes for PBS stations as well.

In that case, what do you think should happen to WGBX (44)?

This may horrify some, but it is not needed - program content on 44.1 is overwhelmingly the same as on 2.1, only broadcast at different times. PBS Kids and PBS Create can join PBS World as sub-channels of 2. Further, since WGBH effectively controls programming on its fellow PBS stations in NH and RI, which overlap the Boston DMA significantly, there would still be plenty of redundancy for PBS fans in the market... and think of how much smaller WGBH's carbon footprint would be if it no longer burned off all that wattage to run a redundant station in the same market.

 

[only1moore]

I'm not sure anyone has mentioned Fisher Broadcasting, which owns KOMO (ABC) Seattle, KATU (ABC Portland), and KREM (CBS) in Spokane, plus a number of smaller market TV stations, some in duopoly. This group is definitely for sale and who is likely to buy in?

KREM is owned by Belo. Fisher does not have stations in Spokane.

 

[bpatrick]

Fisher does, however, own KBAK Bakersfield, KBOI Boise, KIDK (which
it does not manage) Idaho Falls-Pocatello, KLEW Lewiston, ID, KVAL
Eugene, OR, and KIMA Yakima, WA, all CBS affiliates. It also has Fox
affiliates in Bakersfield and Idaho Falls (again, it does not manage the
latter) and Univision affiliates in Seattle and Portland.

 

[searadiofreak]

I stand corrected on Fisher in Spokane. Thanks. Belo owns Seattle, Portland, and Spokane affiliates. That was my confusion. At one time, all owned by KING Broadcasting.