Wyoming TV station wants to come to Wilmington

[ding12]

WFMZ is doing very well with local news and they aren't being subsidized, or forced by law to be turning a profit in what they are doing. Over the years, they expanded in the mornings and a Spanish newscast.

If they were suffering because of the downturn, they would have scaled down on some of their newscasts or staff such as cutting down from 2 anchors to 1 anchor for the 10pm news, before pulling the plug altogether, but we haven't seen that. They were one of the first station newscast to go HD, before NBC10. They claim they have the most watched newscast in the Lehigh Valley.

Regarding WMCN, I think the reason they don't go ahead with local news is because WMGM 40 already does Atlantic City news. WMGM was on CH.4 cable, with an NBC affiliation. And Burlington, Camden, Gloucester counties are well covered by Philly. In Reading, WFMZ does Berks news. So no economies in another Berks station thus we have the current WTVE. In these submarkets, the economies warrant room for 1 station to do news.

In parts of the NY DMA, Cablevision and Time Warner has cable news channels.

Delaware has nothing, it doesn't touch Philly like NJ does, and they are still the 3rd state in the tri-state area. So if the station knew right, they could pick on that niche for a NewsChannel Delaware and be successful at it. On the other hand, the entity could go the infomercial route targetting Philly DMA and ignoring DE, also and be successful at it too.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Delaware has nothing, it doesn't touch Philly like NJ does, and they are still the 3rd state in the tri-state area. So if the station knew right, they could pick on that niche for a NewsChannel Delaware and be successful at it.

You said it well. After next Friday when channel 12 pulls the plug on their Delaware newscast, there will be 16 television news people in Wilmington looking for work. So there is a staff of trained local people ready to hit the ground running for a new commercial Wilmington TV newscast. Think of the sort of great Delaware newscast those folks could do with a commerical station that actually has a realistic budget to spend to make money doing Delaware news vs the channel 12 model that has been on a shoe string since Sid Shaw first did Delaware Tonight back in 1963. When Sid came to channel 12, he was the news team. I met him back then and toured their "lavish" studio at 5th and Scott Sts ( a former little red school house). Sid told me that he took a poloroid camera with him when he went out as a reporter and they projected those poloroids up onto a screen during the newscast. So what channel 12 does today is far better than what Mr. Shaw had back then, but compared to the Philly or Salisbury stations is ameteur by comparison due to the lack of money to do the job correctly. So if the Wyoming TV owner is smart he'll hire that gang of 16 and make a quality newscast for Delaware and make money for his station as the Philly and Salisbury stations do with their newscasts as they serve their respective COL.

 

[imhomerjay]

But who has the money? And where is the evidence there's a great audience for it? If there was such a wide open, profitable opportunity, does anyone think maybe, just maybe, it might have already happened? Maybe someone else has a good idea that hasn't been tried to make it work, and more power to them if they do, but forcing it through outdated, stone-age regulation is nothing more than an excuse to use the government to get what some special interest wants--something that's happened many times in our history.

And I never said WFMZ isn't doing well, it was an example, something I think ding12 knows full well and simply chose to ignore to make an irrelevant point. As for WMCN, why should it matter if someone else is doing local news? Oh, right, we want to have a double standard. Some stations are free from regulation because someone else is spending the money.

Funny how people with no skin in the game seem to think they know what would be a success.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

imhomerjay, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. We see this issue differently. My guess is, given how the FCC has ignored the Wilmington market in terms of TV service, they won't do anything now to "force" channel's 12, 61, or the new Wyoming TV station in Wilmington to do anything more to serve their COL other than the legal id. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Wilmington will continue to be a radio news town for the foreseeable future, which is good news for both WDEL and WILM.

 

[imhomerjay]

Perhaps someone could make a go of it via the access stations on public TV? A cheaper way to get started.

 

[BRNout]

Homerjay, I would be on your side here IF television (and radio for that matter) were based on a lassez faire model where the free market reigns. But that is not the case at all. There are all sorts of government rules and regs in place to protect certain interests at the potential expense of others. Those rules result in my agreeing more with the pro-government MfromD than with your market-based point of view (which is where my loyalties would normally lie).

Why?

Because we now have a system that is based on strict geographic markets that determine what you see and what you don't. And, it's the club of rules from the FCC, the Federal gov't's Cable Act and other organizations which have sprung up to grant exclusive "rights" to certain franchises that have made this not a 100% free market system. For example, a true free market would allow WGAL to be competitive wherever it's signal reaches. If viewers in Chester County decided that they prefer WGAL to NBC10, they should be allowed to watch WGAL. Right now, in eastern Chester County, they can't do that because NBC10 exercises its rights as the sole in-market NBC signal. In Bucks County, perhaps a lot of people would like to have access to New York stations on cable. Right now, they simply cannot. And, for the few areas in the market that do have both options, protections of the 'in market' signals really tilt the playing field with network non-dup and syndex rules.

Under a truly free-market system, it may work out that the in market stations get most of the eyes anyhow; but the way it is we'll never know. Bucks has plenty of New York commuters who would probably appreciate seeing some New York TV, but they are not allowed to without a tall antenna. With dish or cable, it's out. Not because no one would buy it; but because there are rules against it.

Meanwhile, any peashooter in the market can petition for must-carry whether their signal carries anything worthwhile or not. That carriage guarantees some revenue and, again, that skews the concept of free market economics beyond the point where it really is. It's this point which touches MfromD's concerns. With 'must carry' rules in place, a station doesn't need to be good or desirable. It just needs to petition for cable carriage per the FCC and Cable Act guidelines. Let's face it, about 80% of the public get their TV from cable, so that's basically THE market. This is where you get Delaware channels not giving a crap about Delaware. They want the eyes in Philly and with must carry, they can sell enough snake oil via infomercials to make a tidy profit while really not serving their COL or their market. And, the bandwidth lost on cable to a channel that nobody watches could have gone to another more desirable station (be it a cable channel or one from out of the market). For those who get TV OTA, of course out of market signals have no protection. So a dollar a holler infomercial station can pop up and destroy your reception of that New York, Baltimore or Lancaster channel that you liked and there's not thing one you can do about it. Again, that's not exactly the free market concept.

Yes, I know there are details and arguments that I've omitted here in the interest of just getting the ideas out there. My main point is that you can't selectively cite the concept of the free market and how the COL concept is an anachronism without my pointing out that there is a lot of regulation in place, most of which seems to LIMIT our options as viewers. If I want to see my networks from Boston, why can't I? THAT would be a 21st century free market concept. But wherever I live, the local affiliates serving my county would put the kibosh on that. Everyone wants their cake and to eat it too. Well, if that's the case and we have to abide by these fairly strict in-market rules then perhaps the FCC SHOULD direct local stations in underserved areas to start serving those areas with local news and info. Or they lose their license at the end of the term.

Make sure that all parts of the "market" are served. By that regard, maybe places like Delaware, the Lehigh Valley and South Jersey should be their own markets. That would likely guarantee some local content. They're not their own markets because too many big media groups would lose too much revenue that way. Again, having their cake and eating it too. Either we're FREE or we're not. Let's even the playing field and get rid of this BS that favors special interests while meanwhile our cable bills and programming costs skyrocket. If you want must-carry then you should be worth carrying.

Again, I am not a big government guy. Far from it. But I know BS when I see BS. And TV is a very highly regulated marketplace. There's very little market-based freedom involved in it. So, if you're going to regulate things, then do it right. Make stations serve their COL - or at least that part of the market. OR, lift all the exclusivity crap and let stations duke it out. One or the other.

 

[imhomerjay]

No question there is a tangle of regulations that make the situation a mess, mostly a result of lawmakers pandering to the masses to give them exactly what they want, basic principles of market-based economics be darned.

That said, the idealist in me says you don’t begin to address a series of bad decisions (over-regulation) by throwing up your hands and saying, in effect, “Oh well, the elephant’s already in the room; you can’t possibly get it out now.” No, at some point you recognize that enough is enough and you start trying to adapt to realities here in the 21st century.

Of course, I have a realistic side too, and that part of me knows that one change, one blow against the overbearing government meddling isn’t going to be the mythical ‘magic bullet’ that fixes everything. (As a side note, it seems far too many people try to shoot down any effort at reform and change—any new ideas—simply because it may not be a cure all….thus ensuring the problems continue on for years to come.)

If the good folks of Chester County want to watch WGAL, then the system should be that they can ask their satellite or cable company to carry it, and if the parties want to work out an agreement, great. For all I care, if they work out an agreement to bring in stations from Honolulu, so be it.

Conversely, if it’s valuable enough to WCAU to make a deal with the providers to have an exclusive agreement, then that, too, is a part of the free market. There’s no inherent right—a la the right to free speech or to avoid self incrimination—to watch a particular station. You didn’t get to choose in the pre-satellite/cable days, and just because the technology exists, the government shouldn’t be telling the content providers or the delivery systems what they should or shouldn’t do. And if there's some profitable hole in the market, let someone compete to fill it (with competition meaning you take some bruises, not have the government shelter you to create artificial competition.)

And finally, in the same interest of keeping things at a high level and not down in the endless details, the idea of “serving” a particular market is more subjective than ever. What I value, you may not, and so on. Do I value the programs on an all-religious station? Nope. But do I recognize that to a portion of the audience, those programs are of high value? Yes. Ditto with many other types of channels that offer nothing I watch. That point seems to be lost on these types of boards, broadly speaking. Do I think that means they should be compelled to be on my DirecTV or cable service? No. If they have something enough of the public wants to see, then let the parties work out a deal. Or people use an antenna and an A/B switch.

It’s a bit like the alleged method for forcing certain national talk radio show hosts off the air, if you believe their statements (I don’t, but that’s neither here nor there)—in lieu of a fairness doctrine, which has all but been ruled out—some hosts claim a nefarious move is afoot to create some kind of local programming quota. Do WNTP and WPHT with completely and almost-completely syndicated schedules respectively, serve the public interest? I’d wager if you asked the listeners, a good chunk would say they do serve their interest.

What’s still lost in the debate is that nothing is being sacrificed in Delaware if the station is allowed to move. Has anyone lined up with a competing application that will be shut out? No. Is anything being forced off the air in Delaware because of it? No. Is anyone being forced to watch it if it does move in? No. Not getting something you do want isn’t the same as having something you already have taken away. If that were the case, the debate would be on entirely different merits.

 

[Markxxx]

Very good discussions, interesting.

A few things I'd like to chime in with. As other posters have noted TV is not a free market. A free market DOES indeed work best, when all factors make a free market truly free. There are only a limited amount of TV stations, due to technical reasons, so TV is not free, and should be subject to regulation of some sorts. How much regulation is a matter to debate

Also TV stations have to provide local programming of community interest by way of FCC mandates. This is usually filled by newscasts, but it doesn't have to be. For instance in Chicago WPWR in Chicago but licensed to Gary, Indiana does a half hour "talk" show about the city of Gary and it's issues.

Remember also it's NIELSON that makes TV markets, not the FCC. The FCC USES Nielsen markets because it's easier to do than make up its own criteria. This is why Nielsen protects that data, and issued a DMCA notice against the Wikipeida for example.

Nielsen is the only game in town thus we have an effective monopoly. "Effective Monopolies" are organizations that operate as monopolies but "in theory" could be challanged. Google and eBay are two great example of "effective monopolies" Nothing is stopping you from competing with them but they are so far ahead, it would be nearly impossible (note the use of the world nearly) to do so.

TV stations use Nielsen to sell ad time. So it a stations reaches outside of its market it doesn't matter because Nielsen doesn't count any viewers in those markets. From a standpoint of the TV station it makes sense, not to waste effort on areas which see your signal but don't help you to raise ad revenue.

NJ residents have always complained about being underserved, but there are lots of other areas as well. Look at Chicago, NW Indiana is home to about 600,000 people of the 9 million in Chicago but those people rarely get any news coverage. Even minor problems in Chicago get news priority over everything but a graphic murder in the suburbs. That's the way it is. Note I didn't say that is the way it SHOULD be, I said that's just how it is.

Since low VHF stations are part of the allocation, (Whether it should have been or not is another debate) I think it's worthwhile as an experiement to at least use these empty channels for something.

As for affiliations, I am wondering with subchannels does it even matter anymore. I realize you can't do HD if you're running 3 channels (or maybe you can but my understanding is the HD isn't very good), but in the Delmarva area adding another full time channel and giving it NBC sounds like a good idea is it worthwhile if another station can throw it on a subchannel. (I realize there's a whole argument to be made for HDTV or lack of it on subchannels)

 

[imhomerjay]

Onerous regulations that fail to recognize today's realities (and that are adapted as circumstances change) and thus effectively keep a business from being able to launch with a sustainable model also ensure everyone comes up on the losing end of the equation, from missed employement opportunities to the possibility of a more robust business model down the road.