WLNE Sale

[w9wi]

IF an affiliate refuses to a air a particular show.I believe they can farm the show out to another station.
Let's say WLNE (just using this as an example) did not want to air the show. I believe they could strike adeal with WLWC or something with ABC's permision.I am not sure if the affiliate is totaly not available in the market though.

FCC regulation 73.658(b) requires that, if a network's affiliate in a given area decides not to air a program, the network must offer other stations in the market the opportunity to air that program. (nothing requires the other stations to accept it ) WLNE cannot sign a contract with ABC that prohibits ABC from offering programming to WJAR (or other Providence stations) if WLNE doesn't want to run those programs.

_________________________________________________

(actually, to be literal about it, the FCC has no power to regulate networks. 73.658 doesn't require ABC to do anything. It does say that WLNE can't sign an ABC affiliation contract if that contract contains certain unacceptable provisions, including the one to prevent ABC from offering unaired programs to other stations.)

 

[Kenny Atkinson]

IF an affiliate refuses to a air a particular show.I believe they can farm the show out to another station.
Let's say WLNE (just using this as an example) did not want to air the show. I believe they could strike adeal with WLWC or something with ABC's permision.I am not sure if the affiliate is totaly not available in the market though.

FCC regulation 73.658(b) requires that, if a network's affiliate in a given area decides not to air a program, the network must offer other stations in the market the opportunity to air that program. (nothing requires the other stations to accept it ) WLNE cannot sign a contract with ABC that prohibits ABC from offering programming to WJAR (or other Providence stations) if WLNE doesn't want to run those programs.

_________________________________________________

(actually, to be literal about it, the FCC has no power to regulate networks. 73.658 doesn't require ABC to do anything. It does say that WLNE can't sign an ABC affiliation contract if that contract contains certain unacceptable provisions, including the one to prevent ABC from offering unaired programs to other stations.)

The reason why I bring this up is in the 80's ABC ran an hour or two of syndicated sitcoms in the morning. "Too Close for Comfort" was one of them.
WCVB did'nt air it and WLVI did. Does anyone else remember this.

I also remember something about an episode of LAW and ORDER SVU shortly after the Station Night Club Fire that was a little too close to home and there was something about WJAR leaning towards not airing it.I know they aired the episode but late at night on delay with a disclaimer.I thought the episode almost ended up somewhere else.
I know I'm in the Ball Park but forget a good chunk of it.

 

[davect]

The reason why I bring this up is in the 80's ABC ran an hour or two of syndicated sitcoms in the morning. "Too Close for Comfort" was one of them.
WCVB did'nt air it and WLVI did. Does anyone else remember this.

Another example: In the early 1990's WHLL 27 aired some weekend sports and primetime programming that WVCB didn't want. They also carried ABC reruns of Growing Pains and Perfect Strangers 12pm-1pm. There was also a time they did something similar with NBC programs that WBZ didn't want (when 'BZ was an NBC affiliate). Similarly, WABU 68 carried the CBS morning show for a while.

 

[Dtv]

I know tv 68 carried Another world from nbc when ch4 was nbc. And I want to say before 68 picked up another world that 27 had another world, or maybe some other nbc soap or gameshow.

 

[bostonmediaguy]

I know tv 68 carried Another world from nbc when ch4 was nbc. And I want to say before 68 picked up another world that 27 had another world, or maybe some other nbc soap or gameshow.

Are you sure it was not Ch. 62, which became the secondary NBC affiliate in the early '90s?

 

[Dtv]

Ah it could have been, all the high end uhf get mixed up in my brain

 

[TexasTom]

FCC regulation 73.658(b) requires that, if a network's affiliate in a given area decides not to air a program, the network must offer other stations in the market the opportunity to air that program. (nothing requires the other stations to accept it ) WLNE cannot sign a contract with ABC that prohibits ABC from offering programming to WJAR (or other Providence stations) if WLNE doesn't want to run those programs.

I wonder how reverse compensation impacts this rule?

Back in the days when the FCC developed that particular rule, networks paid stations to air their programming, rather than the other wasy around. Amongst other things, the affiliation agreement set the amount of compensation a station would receive for carrying network programs -- which presumably meant that a station carrying network programming without an affiliation agreement and invoking this rule would get the programming, but not any compensation. Not such a good deal for the station...

Now, however, stations are increasingly having to send money to the networks in order to air their programming ("reverse compensation"). The amount of money, again, is set by the affiliation contract. If an unaffiliated station could air the programming of a network with no local affiliate without signing an agreement, then presumably they also wouldn't have to pay reverse compensation to the network, either. So that could theoretically create a situation where a station would be better off not signing an agreement and just carrying the programming without an affiliation agreement, thereby saving the cost of the reverse compensation. Of course, they'd also be taking the risk that that programming will instead end up on the subchannel of a competitor that *is* willing to pay...

 

[w9wi]

I wonder how reverse compensation impacts this rule?

Back in the days when the FCC developed that particular rule, networks paid stations to air their programming, rather than the other wasy around. Amongst other things, the affiliation agreement set the amount of compensation a station would receive for carrying network programs -- which presumably meant that a station carrying network programming without an affiliation agreement and invoking this rule would get the programming, but not any compensation. Not such a good deal for the station...

Now, however, stations are increasingly having to send money to the networks in order to air their programming ("reverse compensation"). The amount of money, again, is set by the affiliation contract. If an unaffiliated station could air the programming of a network with no local affiliate without signing an agreement, then presumably they also wouldn't have to pay reverse compensation to the network, either. So that could theoretically create a situation where a station would be better off not signing an agreement and just carrying the programming without an affiliation agreement, thereby saving the cost of the reverse compensation. Of course, they'd also be taking the risk that that programming will instead end up on the subchannel of a competitor that *is* willing to pay...

Well, for one thing I think you counter your own point (grin) -- yes, a station not normally affiliated with a network and carrying a program for which no "forward" compensation is offered isn't getting the best deal in the world -- but obviously stations are willing to pay *reverse* compensation -- which they wouldn't be willing to do if they didn't feel they were getting something valuable for that money.

What they're getting are additional eyeballs for the local commercials they air during the network programs, and during the local newscasts following/preceding the network shows, and during syndicated programs (in which they get more local inventory) surrounding the network shows. No, it's not as lucrative as "forward compensation" was, but it's still profitable.

As for the other part, do remember that the network continues to hold the copyright on its shows. The network is required to offer any shows its affiliate doesn't clear to other, unaffiliated stations. However, those other stations must have the network's approval before they can air those shows.

And also remember that the network must *offer* those shows. It isn't required to *place* them. If no unaffiliated station is interested, those shows don't air.

I think the FCC would probably have a problem if shows were offered to unaffiliated stations with discriminatory conditions -- if the network tried to charge an unaffiliated station reverse compensation when the same show came out even or paid forward compensation to the regular affiliate. I think they'd probably be fine if the shows were offered with the same conditions as they're offered to the regular affiliate.

In practice I think it's unlikely any program for which reverse compensation is charged will be "up for grabs" for non-affiliated stations. Those would be the most popular shows -- the most profitable ones -- the ones the affiliate is least likely to reject.

 

[TexasTom]

Ah, but where it becomes complex is if you have a situation in which a network has no local affiliate. In that scenario, all of their programming -- including whatever popular shows they have -- would become available under the old FCC rule.

In that scenario, if I'm running an unaffiliated station, why would I bother to sign an affiliation agreement -- which would include reverse compensation -- when I could just pick up those programs for free under the old FCC rule. In today's environment, the FCC rule goes has become a potential free ride, which I don't believe was in the original intention of the rule.

Of course, the other side of this argument could be that if a network's negotiating position is that weak, then they wouldn't be able to extract much (if any) reverse compensation in their affiliation agreements, which suggests that this is probably more a theoretical point than a real one. Especially since subchannels have made it much easier for networks to find open channels to affiliate with than was true in the past.

 

[DTV-Chief]

Ah, but where it becomes complex is if you have a situation in which a network has no local affiliate. In that scenario, all of their programming -- including whatever popular shows they have -- would become available under the old FCC rule.

In that scenario, if I'm running an unaffiliated station, why would I bother to sign an affiliation agreement -- which would include reverse compensation -- when I could just pick up those programs for free under the old FCC rule. In today's environment, the FCC rule goes has become a potential free ride, which I don't believe was in the original intention of the rule.

Of course, the other side of this argument could be that if a network's negotiating position is that weak, then they wouldn't be able to extract much (if any) reverse compensation in their affiliation agreements, which suggests that this is probably more a theoretical point than a real one. Especially since subchannels have made it much easier for networks to find open channels to affiliate with than was true in the past.

Is it really true stations could just pick up those programs for free under the old FCC rule.? Did the FCC prohibit a network from charging for content??

 

[w9wi]

Ah, but where it becomes complex is if you have a situation in which a network has no local affiliate. In that scenario, all of their programming -- including whatever popular shows they have -- would become available under the old FCC rule.

In that scenario, if I'm running an unaffiliated station, why would I bother to sign an affiliation agreement -- which would include reverse compensation -- when I could just pick up those programs for free under the old FCC rule. In today's environment, the FCC rule goes has become a potential free ride, which I don't believe was in the original intention of the rule.

I don't see where the FCC rule required the network to offer the programs for free. It requires them to offer the programs under the same terms as they're offered to the regular affiliate. If the network requires the regular affiliate to pay reverse compensation, they can require an unaffiliated station to pay reverse compensation.

Plus, as you suggest, with DTV you run a pretty high risk of having the desirable network programs pulled out from under you, by an affiliate of some other network launching a subchannel and offering fulltime clearance for the network you want to cherry-pick.

 

[TexasTom]

I don't see where the FCC rule required the network to offer the programs for free. It requires them to offer the programs under the same terms as they're offered to the regular affiliate. If the network requires the regular affiliate to pay reverse compensation, they can require an unaffiliated station to pay reverse compensation.

But if they don't have an affiliate in a particular market, then there are no terms set for a regular affiliate. Under these circumstances, the FCC rule would be pretty difficult to sort out in today's environment.

Really, it's only a theoretical point, since I'm not aware of any instances in a long time of a station carrying network programming under that FCC rule...it just doesn't really seem to happen anymore.

(Oh, and in response to another question -- in the old days, networks didn't charge affiliates for the network programming, but actually paid the stations. That wasn't an FCC rule, but was just standard industry practice until fairly recently. So it wasn't that the FCC ruled forced networks to give away their programming...)

 

[joebtsflk1]

Lucky for everyone in RI that Phil Lombardo didn't get his hands on WLNE before 2009, or he would have tried to run DTV on actual channel 6. All his stations reverted back to the original channel upon DTV conversion. That might work for his two high band Vs on channels 8 and 9, but channels 4 and 5 haven't worked so well.

Phil might avoid daytime infomercials, but all his stations are cheap also-ran operations.

 

[DToTheJ]

I'm sure if WLNE can get itself into the black and out of the red, Phil - and Providence - will take it.

 

[Garrett]

I'm sure if WLNE can get itself into the black and out of the red, Phil - and Providence - will take it.

Scott Fybush wrote that a bunch of people were let go today. But, I thought the new owners said they wanted to put money into the station?

Guess that was a lie...

 

[someplacesomewhere]

I'm sure if WLNE can get itself into the black and out of the red, Phil - and Providence - will take it.

Scott Fybush wrote that a bunch of people were let go today. But, I thought the new owners said they wanted to put money into the station?

Guess that was a lie...

Into the station, not it's staff.

 

[formeraa]

I'm sure if WLNE can get itself into the black and out of the red, Phil - and Providence - will take it.

Scott Fybush wrote that a bunch of people were let go today. But, I thought the new owners said they wanted to put money into the station?

Guess that was a lie...

Would you keep the same staff who were unsuccessful? I wouldn't. I would find new people who had the same vision as myself. I would expect to see more changes.

 

[qunewsguy]

I'm sure if WLNE can get itself into the black and out of the red, Phil - and Providence - will take it.

Scott Fybush wrote that a bunch of people were let go today. But, I thought the new owners said they wanted to put money into the station?

Guess that was a lie...

Would you keep the same staff who were unsuccessful? I wouldn't. I would find new people who had the same vision as myself. I would expect to see more changes.

They let go of engineers, camera ops, and photogs. I wouldn't exactly place them first in the "blame" line for the station being unsuccessful.

 

[formeraa]

I've spoken with a lot of unhappy, "behind the scenes" people lately. It can be a real cancer on a station, if all of these people are grumbling, complaining, and only giving a token effort into the product. Often, the only way to really start over is to get rid of the whiners and complainers even if it "isn't their fault".

 

[newsbot]

I've spoken with a lot of unhappy, "behind the scenes" people lately. It can be a real cancer on a station, if all of these people are grumbling, complaining, and only giving a token effort into the product. Often, the only way to really start over is to get rid of the whiners and complainers even if it "isn't their fault".

What he said. Lombardo made it abundantly clear that he would meet with staff and if they didn't see eye to eye on the direction of the station they wouldn't be staying on.