Select Univision Radio Stations Sold

[TheBigA]

The FCC regulates control of the license. This is a situation where the petitioner believes that the seller is retaining operrating control of stations after a sale.

The terms of the agreement seem pretty clear as to who is in control. There is more to operating a station than the programming it runs. Otherwise all of these 24/7 programming companies would be illegal. As you know, Univision is also in the radio syndication business. That business would not exist if it didn't program stations it didn't own.

And he has a good one that needs definition going forward, as it has never been done before.

It's not unusual for a single station owner to use his own funds to buy a radio station. I've seen where the owner lends money to his station LLC in order to make the purchase. I've seen where churches will lend money to a church-owned radio station.

 

[davideduardo]

The terms of the agreement seem pretty clear as to who is in control. There is more to operating a station than the programming it runs. Otherwise all of these 24/7 programming companies would be illegal. As you know, Univision is also in the radio syndication business. That business would not exist if it didn't program stations it didn't own.

The agreement has Univision controlling "operations" for as much as / at least 18 months after the closing.

An affiliate to Univision program services can decide to continue, increase, decrease or suspend affiliation. But in a situation where the seller retains a 5 to 3 majority vote on all operations of the sold stations, we are entering a new kind of agreement that is not an affiliation and not an LMA but an ongoing control of a group of stations that would be in an approved sale if the transfer is, indeed, approved.

It's not unusual for a single station owner to use his own funds to buy a radio station. I've seen where the owner lends money to his station LLC in order to make the purchase. I've seen where churches will lend money to a church-owned radio station.

No, an LLC has "legal personality" that is different from that of the individual. As such, they are separate entities under the law. In this case, the lender is also a 50% owner and the petition asks for investigation on how this meets the qualification for ownership elements of the law and the rules.

In this case, the lender is essentially providing funds to itself. In the process, it is subsidizing the "big name" buyers who it is alleged don't actually have any skin in the game.

 

[TheBigA]

The agreement has Univision controlling "operations" for as much as / at least 18 months after the closing.

Doing the work and being legally responsible to the FCC are two different things. The buyer is still responsible to the FCC. If the tower falls down, the FCC can contact the buyers, and they contact the contracted staff who handle the situation.

In this case, the lender is essentially providing funds to itself. In the process, it is subsidizing the "big name" buyers who it is alleged don't actually have any skin in the game.

Regardless of the money, the buyers are the ones who are responsible to the FCC and answerable in the event of a violation.

 

[davideduardo]

Doing the work and being legally responsible to the FCC are two different things. The buyer is still responsible to the FCC. If the tower falls down, the FCC can contact the buyers, and they contact the contracted staff who handle the situation.

Other way around. The FCC has no staff, or even delegates, who check if towers are standing or not... or any other operational issue.

FCC field operations are so reduced that many markets have multiple pirate stations, translators operating without an agreement with a signal to "translate", excess power operation, failure to do legal IDs and on and on and on. Miami, New York and Houston are the hotbeads of pirates, but stations engaging in illegal operations are found everywhere; the most obvious are daytimers that stay on all night and directional systems that are running on just one tower.

If a tower falls, the licensee is responsible for notifying the Commission that they are off the air*... and further requesting an STA for remaining silent... and requesting a temporary antenna, maybe with reduced power... and so on.

The FCC does not "find out" or "know" that you have such an issue. The licensee bears the burden of keeping the FCC updated on any change in the licensed facility. Only in rare cases where a station neither notifies nor operates legally will a third party file with the FCC objecting to the way the station is running.

Regardless of the money, the buyers are the ones who are responsible to the FCC and answerable in the event of a violation.

That is true. The issue here is that there has never been a post-Sale reverse LMA where the seller retains absolute control of station operations and has a majority position on the equivalente of the "new" operation's board of directors.

* And notifying the FAA that the tower is down if it is marked on aviation maps as a "landmark" or if it was the only lit tower in a directional array or if there is any other hazard. Local regulations may require notification of a hazard and the filing of paperwork to allow rebuilding the tower

 

[TheBigA]

If a tower falls, the licensee is responsible for notifying the Commission that they are off the air*... and further requesting an STA for remaining silent... and requesting a temporary antenna, maybe with reduced power... and so on.

Under the terms of the contract, who pays for the new tower? The seller or the buyer? My expectation is the buyer. Thus the operator contacts the buyer for the money, and whoever is designated contacts the FCC. Once again, we're talking about services contracted and paid for by the buyer, not the "operator."

That is true. The issue here is that there has never been a post-Sale reverse LMA where the seller retains absolute control of station operations and has a majority position on the equivalente of the "new" operation's board of directors.

But it's not permanent. If it was a permanent situation, you might have a point. If this gets delayed for more than a year, the buyers may not need this aspect of the deal. Sort of makes the whole thing moot.

 

[led]

Conclusion: they want to change WAQI to Radio Rebelde Miami translator using capitalist dollars 😂