Super station pack

[GADAWG]

Is there something going on with this package? I noticed that dish has stopped charging me for it and that usually means problems are coming. :confused:

[Mike123abc]

Well it should not happen until next month, but maybe your billing cycle is hitting January 2005. Dish currently cannot sell the SuperStations past 12/31/04. The new satellite bill has to pass and become law to license the sale of the superstations past 12/31/04.

[Bob Haller]

plus local channel carriage, ot all expires together.

imagine the uproar if sat had to pull EVERY \LIL january first:(

SOMETHING will pass, mihjt be a keep things as is bill.

[scooper]

No Bob - if the extension doesn't go through - LIL WILL stay. Superstations and Distant Networks will go away..

[Mickdog]

Ok, question. Is this a special HD pack? If not, does that mean AT120 and AT150 will be a few channels short soon?

[Geronimo]

Is WHAT a special HD pack? This isa bout the superstations. theyare not HD and not in ANY of those packages.

[ClaudeR]

Superstations are TBS and UPN (locals)

[Geronimo]

Not quite. These are the superstations

WSBK Boston UPN
WWOR NY UPN
WPIX NY WB
KWGN Denver WB
KTLA LA WB

WTBS and WGN call themselves superstatiosn bat are not.

[hometheaterman]

So does this mean in January I will loose my superstations? If so I will be canceling Dish as WB is mainly all I watch? Is this a real threat or is it just one of those things charlier pulls to try to get a better deal on channels saying he will take them off until the last minute?

[SimpleSimon]

I'll have to move to the Denver DMA in order to continue to get UPN. Of course, if I do that, I'll probably re-qualify for distant ABC - if they are still on the table.

[Geronimo]

It means that we need for some version of an extesion to SHVIA to pass. Go to the SHVIRA forum to see all that has occurred. Don't panic just yet.

[mcglauch]

Are there any other cities with the WB and UPN on a national beam. I may have to "move" if these get dropped. These are my number 1 reason for staying with E*. Now I may have to wait and see what happens before I order my 921.

[hometheaterman]

YEah I like E but they are also my main reason although with out them I still would probably have E but if they drop them as much as I hate it I may have to go back to cable the quality sucks but basically I only watch FOX and WB well those the most anyway and FOX is a distant net for me. They just added my locals but it doesn't include fox and I cant get it OTA and we don't have a local WB.

[sikma]

Are there any other cities with the WB and UPN on a national beam. I may have to "move" if these get dropped. These are my number 1 reason for staying with E*. Now I may have to wait and see what happens before I order my 921.
All the locals on 105 and 121 are ConUs beams.

[Mike123abc]

Congress is back in session this week, I hope they finally get around to passing the satellite bill... I really do not want to lose the superstations.

[Jacob S]

Dang that sucks majorly. I have had the SuperStations since I had Dish Network back in 1997. That has been one big big advantage in my opinion to DirecTv. DirecTv does not offer the local WB in my area and Dish Network does so it wouldnt be all bad. It would be nice to pick it up on a smaller dish for my area rather than a big one (if SuperStations are not allowed starting next year) particularly if one wanted to go camping/RV'ing, but at least with the SuperDish it can be reached nationwide even your locals.

[garypen]

Not quite. These are the superstations

WSBK Boston UPN
WWOR NY UPN
WPIX NY UPN
KWGN Denver WB
KTLA LA WB
Not quite. WPIX is a WB affiliate, not UPN. It is even advertised as WB11.

[Geronimo]

Typo Sorry. Thanks for the correction Gary!

[garypen]

BTW, You typo'ed typo. LOL!

[Link]

Not quite. WPIX is a WB affiliate, not UPN. It is even advertised as WB11.

It is funny how Fox owned WNYW Fox 5 and WWOR UPN 9 have the same owners and 2 competing newscasts at 10pm. However, they claim the WWOR News is geared more to New Jersey.

[garypen]

When did Fox buy channel 9?

[Geronimo]

When they bought all of the parent company. Just as the WB was thge union of a studio (Warner Brothers) and a TV group (Tribune), UPN was originally a partnership of Paramount and a large station group. Eventually VIACOM bought out their partner's interest in the network but then Fox gobbled up the former partner that owned many of the affiliates.

To complicate things further when ownership rules were modified Fox and VIACOM entered into a deal to swap stations. FOX now owns several UPN stations in many major markets.

[TonyM]

yep
Fox owns both the FOX & UPN in Minneapolis :)

[garypen]

I long for the days of ownership restrictions. (and, the Fairness Doctrine, as well.) I'm really getting sick of this s**t.

[Steve Mehs]

It is funny how Fox owned WNYW Fox 5 and WWOR UPN 9 have the same owners and 2 competing newscasts at 10pm. However, they claim the WWOR News is geared more to New Jersey.

In my viewing that is correct, at least on UPN 9. As many of you guys know, I had the Superstation pack for non-local local news. Never watched an ounce of WB or UPN programming, I just liked being able to watch news from some where else besides Buffalo. WWORs newscast was focused on the Jersey side of the NYC area, rather then the NY side. Only time I watch the UPN 9 News was when the Mets had night games. Without a doubt, the WB11 News at 10 is my favorite newscast of all time, Tong and that guy make a great team and have been together for years, Mr. G just had something about him that made him the most likable weatherman on the planet. The WB11 morning show was good too, always looked forward to Linda Lopez’s segment, not that I really cared about the latest Hollywood makeup’s and breakups, but she was just hot. :)

[Geronimo]

In fact while one company can own 2 stations in a market at least one of them has to be the number 5 station or worse in terms of ratings.. In a sense it actually is a disincentive to improving the lower rated of the two.

[boylehome]

Congress is back in session this week, I hope they finally get around to passing the satellite bill... I really do not want to lose the superstations.
It scares me to think that Congress is possibly going to do something about satellite viewing. So far they have been unhelpful to the average citizen. Now they have been helpful to those who have big dollars. Hmmm, I wonder why?

[TonyM]

In fact while one company can own 2 stations in a market at least one of them has to be the number 5 station or worse in terms of ratings.. In a sense it actually is a disincentive to improving the lower rated of the two.

Chief
I thought the rules were one owner couldn't own more than one of "The Big 4" in a market?

[Geronimo]

No I don't believe so. But lets see if someone will correct me if I am incorrect. I did a quick Google search a nd everything said Top 4 not Big 4. Here is an example:

. Local Television Duopoly Rules.

The duopoly rules currently provide that an entity can own television stations licensed to communities in different Designated Market Areas ("DMA") without regard to contour overlap, and can own two television stations in the same DMA if at least one of the stations is not among the four highest-ranked stations in the market, and if at least eight independently owned and operating full-power broadcast television stations (i.e. "eight independent voices") would remain in the DMA once the proposed combination is consummated. In addition, it is presumed to be in the public interest to waive the rule if one of the stations in a proposed combination is a failed or failing station, or is not yet constructed, provided that the waiver applicant or (in the case of an unbuilt station) the permittee satisfies certain stringent waiver tests. Once formed, whether pursuant to the rules or waiver, a combination may not be transferred unless it meets the rule or waiver standard in effect at the time of transfer. In the MO&O, the FCC changed or modified the current rules in several important respects.

[Mike123abc]

I wonder if there is a market where ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX do not make the top 4 in ratings.

[TNGTony]

In Dayton, OH the same company owns (or programs) both the Fox and ABC stations. WKEF ABC 22 (used to be NBC until this summer) and WRGT Fox 45. There are 7 full power TV stations in the market (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, PBS and TBN)

I think the ownership limits are different for the top 50 markets and the other 160 markets.

See ya
Tony

[kzosat]

In the Kalamazoo/GrandRapids/Battle Creek DMA in Michigan, UPN, ABC and NBC are all owned by one company. The only catch I can think is the fact that there are 2 ABC affiliates here.

[tampa8]

My bill just arrived and as always the charge for superstations is there. So after reading this thread my question, is anyone else reporting they did not get charged for superstations or is this all based on one person reporting it?

[kzosat]

I also got charged on my latest bill. But the bill has a service date of 11/29 thru 12/28.

[TonyM]

I wonder if there is a market where ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX do not make the top 4 in ratings.

I think there might be a limit due to the amount of channels. In Duluth, there are only the Big 4 + PBS OTA (UPN is on a digital subchannel), and found some info on a couple of the stations back in April

Duluth CBS affiliate KDLH/3 has been sold for the third time in two years, and a combination of some services with NBC affiliate KBJR/6 will follow the sale. New Vision TV will sell KDLH to Malara Communications for a reported $10.8 million. Malara has already reached an agreement with KBJR owner Granite Broadcasting to provide "advertising sales, promotion and administrative services, and selected programming" to KDLH. There's no word yet on whether that will include any combination of the two stations' news operations. Granite cannot buy KDLH outright, since FCC regulations prohibit one company from owning more than one of the top four stations in a market

[scottchez]

I confirmed that yes they are going away if a Bill is not passed or adjusted.

I also confirmed with Direct TV as this is why they did not add the package when they were bought.

WSBK Boston UPN
WWOR NY UPN
WPIX NY WB
KWGN Denver WB
KTLA LA WB


Will be no more unless your in the local market.

You need to contact your congress man now to stop the cut off.

[Geronimo]

In Dayton, OH the same company owns (or programs) both the Fox and ABC stations. WKEF ABC 22 (used to be NBC until this summer) and WRGT Fox 45. There are 7 full power TV stations in the market (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, PBS and TBN)

I think the ownership limits are different for the top 50 markets and the other 160 markets.

See ya
Tony


Maybe. But I see nothing like that. It may well be that operating agreeements etc are not considered to bew the same as ownership. Near as I can tell duopolies are not permitteed if there are fewer than eight stations.

I deal with Government regs all the time----but in a totally different field. So I am the first to admit that there may be intricacies of it all that are difficult to decipher.

[Paul Secic]

So does this mean in January I will loose my superstations? If so I will be canceling Dish as WB is mainly all I watch? Is this a real threat or is it just one of those things charlier pulls to try to get a better deal on channels saying he will take them off until the last minute?
Charlie has nothing to do with it. Its the Feds. If Charlie had his way there would be more Superstations.

[Jacob S]

In Charleston, WV DMA the FOX and ABC stations are owned by the same company.

[Geronimo]

I thought that the FCC denied Sinclair's request to purchase WVAH-TV in Charleston. Did I misread this? I thought that they manage it but don't operate it. But I have to admit that these things are hard to read.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-570A1.pdf

[TNGTony]

WKEF 22 (ABC) and WRGT 54 (Fox) Dayton are both owned by holding companies that are owned by Sinclaire Broadcasting.

See ya
Tony

[Geronimo]

According to the Sinclair Web Site they own only one station in Charleston and manage the other. They make the same statement about Dayton. I believe the FCC document above addresses both markets.

I am not in the broadcast industry. So I couls be wrong. But IMO they do not OWN those stations and therefore there is no duopoly. As for the :holding company" argument I don't know how to respond. It seems that RAINBOW/PUSH and others believe that or something like it but the FCC seems to be saying that the two companies are separate.

I will leave the issue of who IS in control to others but the FCC seems to be saying that, as they see it, Sinclair does not own or control the other company.

http://www.sbgi.net/business/markets/dayton.shtml

[TNGTony]

Take a look at the Sinclare web page: http://sbgi.net/business/markets/dayton.shtml
http://sbgi.net/business/markets/charlestonwv.shtml
http://sbgi.net/business/markets/columbus.shtml

Looks like they are calling it a "local marketing agreement to get around the ownership limits

[Geronimo]

Again that is one to look at it. The FCC apparently sees it another way. Here is what they said

"Rainbow also challenges the Local Marketing Agreements (LMAs) between Sinclair and Cunningham. The LMAs have been in place for five years and were favorably reviewed by the Commission in Glencairn, Ltd. The Commission requested certain changes to the LMAs, but otherwise found that the LMAs complied with the Commission’s Rules and policies. Rainbow raises nothing new to convince us that the LMAs should be reexamined.

Finally, Rainbow points to content on the web pages of certain Cunningham stations as indicative of Sinclair’s control of these stations. The Commission has previously held that the content of station websites is wholly irrelevant to the determination of station control.12 None of the content cited to by Rainbow is evidence that Sinclair controls these stations. Because Sinclair is currently programming the stations pursuant to LMAs, it would not be unusual to see references to Sinclair on the stations’ web site. At the same time, Cunningham is accurately listed as the stations’ licensee. "




That is the same link to Sinclair that I gave you BTW.

[TNGTony]

Sorry, I was working on the post when you posted yours. :)

Anyway, WRGT is owned by WRGT Licensee, LLC. WKEF is owned by WKEF Licensee, LLC . Each of these LLC companies are controlled by Sinclair. Whether the FCC wants to acknowlege it or not, Sinclair owns both these stations.

See ya
Tony

[Geronimo]

Well I guess we can agree to disagree.

[homeskillet]

Here is a story that came out recently here in KC about Sinclair and ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


CBS affiliate taking over WB station

By AARON BARNHART

The Kansas City Star


Two more television stations in Kansas City merged operations Friday, as the owner of CBS affiliate KCTV bought a controlling stake in WB affiliate KSMO-TV.

But the deal — initially valued at $26.8 million, with a potential $6.7 million kicker later — probably will face legal challenges.

Kirk Black, the general manager of KCTV, made the announcement at KSMO's offices in Kansas City, Kan., Friday afternoon. Black said Des Moines-based Meredith Corp. was assuming control of Channel 62 immediately and KSMO's facilities would be moved to KCTV's Fairway offices within four months. He said the employees of both stations would remain on payroll, except for KSMO's general manager, Mark Martin, who is leaving.

“We're taking over KSMO,” said Black, who called the acquisition “exciting” and said it would make Meredith “the biggest player in town.”

Under the arrangement, KCTV will be able to sell all available commercial time on both stations and boost profits by combining operations, such as sales and engineering, which the stations now perform separately.

KCTV will also be able to determine up to 15 percent of KSMO's programming, or about five hours per weekday. Black said this could include adding KCTV's local news, Metro Sports or repeat broadcasts of syndicated fare such as “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” to KSMO's schedule.

The deal comes at a time when media ownership rules are in greater flux than at any time in history. The company is betting, in effect, that the federal courts, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission will resolve a variety of disputes affecting broadcasters in such a way that KCTV will be allowed to buy KSMO outright.

Currently, federal law on “duopolies” — the ownership of two stations in a single market — does not permit an outright KCTV-KSMO merger. Instead, Meredith is paying $26.8 million to enter into a “joint sales agreement” with KSMO's owner, Sinclair Broadcast Group of Hunt Valley, Md., with an option to buy the license for $6.7 million should the law change.

The joint sales agreement could be invalidated under a proposed rule change filed in August by the FCC.

Currently, both stations in a joint sales agreement are considered independent. If the rule change goes through, the owner of the larger station would be considered in control of the smaller one. That would put Meredith in violation of the commission's “voices” rule, which stipulates that stations cannot merge if that would reduce the number of independent voices in a market to fewer than eight.

There are 10 TV stations in Kansas City controlled by eight entities. E.W. Scripps Co. owns both KSHB-TV and KMCI-TV, while Hearst-Argyle owns KMBC-TV and operates KCWE-TV.

Further complicating matters, an appellate court in Washington in 2003 remanded several rules to the FCC, including the “voices” rule. If the commission is unable to justify the continuing need for the rules, they will be nullified and the KSMO deal would stand.

Another possibility is that the commission will allow the merger under a grandfather clause, as it has done when making rule changes in the past.

To Sinclair, challenging media ownership rules is nothing new. Shortly after the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed by Congress, Sinclair struck deals that virtually doubled the number of stations under its control. The law on such deals was vague, and Sinclair was allowed to keep the agreements in place. It currently owns or operates 62 TV stations, more than any other company.

“This is the kind of skirting-the-law tactic that has helped make Sinclair the poster child for big, bad media,” said Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, which advocates tougher media ownership rules. “Clearly Sinclair here is taking a wager that their pals at the FCC will give them a high five to sell the station.”

Chester and other industry observers predicted Friday that with Sinclair involved, the deal would face higher-than-usual scrutiny from political opponents and media watchdog groups.

Sinclair recently endured a storm of protest over its plans to broadcast a documentary, “Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal,” that attacked presidential candidate John Kerry. It wound up showing a more traditional news program that featured both “Stolen Honor” and a pro-Kerry film.

With KCTV's newsroom as its disposal, KSMO is unlikely to become an affiliate in Sinclair's “News Central” operation, which produces a hybrid national-local newscast for more than 30 of its stations. Critics say “News Central” waters down local news, replacing it with large doses of right-wing commentary beamed in from its Maryland headquarters. Sinclair has argued that it is bringing local news to TV stations that traditionally did not offer news.

Sinclair officials did not return phone calls on Friday.

According to full-day Nielsen ratings averages, KCTV is the second-most-watched station in Kansas City. KSMO ranks fifth.

With the transaction, Meredith now owns or operates 14 TV stations in addition to its publishing assets. It has owned KCTV since 1953.

The company's shares closed Friday at $52.38, down 1 cent.

[James Long]

Anyway, WRGT is owned by WRGT Licensee, LLC. WKEF is owned by WKEF Licensee, LLC . Each of these LLC companies are controlled by Sinclair. Whether the FCC wants to acknowlege it or not, Sinclair owns both these stations.The FCC has an ownership search on their website ...
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/own_search.htm

I searched for wrgt% and wkef% there (the % as a wild card to match -tv without typing it).

Personally I'd rather read pending laws ... they are easier to decifer, but it does appear that the lawyers have kept the owning parties separate. :D

Ownership and real control are different things.

JL

[Link]

I wonder if there is a market where ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX do not make the top 4 in ratings.

Well what happens if a company owns two stations in a market and the second one becomes a top 4 station in the ratings? Then what? Are they forced to sell it?

[garypen]

Well I guess we can agree to disagree....except that Tony is right.

[Geronimo]

Sarcasm aside Gary I am not sure it is that cut and dried.

As I said I will leave all that to others. My point always was that the FCC has already ruled that hose situations are NOT duoplies. Tony and others see the two companies as one but the FCC says that they are not.

It is controversial issue. But the original way in which this was raised was whether a duopoly was legal in a city with fewer than eight stations or in a situation in which two of the four highest rated stations are involved. At that point it was claimed that you can have them because it exists in Dayton and Charleston.

The answer is still no, you can't have one in those situations. However, as I mentioned several posts ago there are many (Including RAINBOW/PUSH) that claim that Sinclair and Cunningham are the same company but the FCC has ruled otherwise.

I don't necessarily disagree with Tony on the Sinclair/Cunningham ownership issue---and said that many times.. But I Do disagree on what that proves about duoplies. But I respect him and his contributions to the forums.

At this point there is enough out there about the ownership----and a link to the FCC decision so everyone can decide for themselves.

[garypen]

Sarcasm aside Gary I am not sure it is that cut and dried.

As I said I will leave all that to others. My point always was that the FCC has already ruled that hose situations are NOT duoplies. Tony and others see the two companies as one but the FCC says that they are not.

It is controversial issue. But the original way in which this was raised was whether a duopoly was legal in a city with fewer than eight stations or in a situation in which two of the four highest rated stations are involved. At that point it was claimed that you can have them because it exists in Dayton and Charleston.

The answer is still no, you can't have one in those situations. However, as I mentioned several posts ago there are many (Including RAINBOW/PUSH) that claim that Sinclair and Cunningham are the same company but the FCC has ruled otherwise.

I don't necessarily disagree with Tony on the Sinclair/Cunningham ownership issue---and said that many times.. But I Do disagree on what that proves about duoplies. But I respect him and his contributions to the forums.

At this point there is enough out there about the ownership----and a link to the FCC decision so everyone can decide for themselves.No sarcasm was intented. Tony is simply correct in his assesment of ownership, regardless of what the FCC has ruled. Eggs is eggs.

In recent years, the FCC has had its nose firmly planted between the cheeks of the broadcasters, particularly the big backers of the folks in charge. That would include News Corp, Sinclair, and Clear Channel. That is why these companies own multiple TV, Radio, and Print media outlets in the same market. Using these "holding" companies is a blatant way to skirt the law. The FCC is basically giving them the wink.

[Paul Secic]

Congress is back in session this week, I hope they finally get around to passing the satellite bill... I really do not want to lose the superstations.
Congress came back today, but they go home for good Friday so you better call and tell them to pass the satelite bill NOW!!!!

[garypen]

You can call Congress at 1-800-BIZWHOR

[Geronimo]

No sarcasm was intented. Tony is simply correct in his assesment of ownership, regardless of what the FCC has ruled. Eggs is eggs.

In recent years, the FCC has had its nose firmly planted between the cheeks of the broadcasters, particularly the big backers of the folks in charge. That would include News Corp, Sinclair, and Clear Channel. That is why these companies own multiple TV, Radio, and Print media outlets in the same market. Using these "holding" companies is a blatant way to skirt the law. The FCC is basically giving them the wink.


Peace. I don't really think it is a "holding company" issue. More an issue of who controls what. Many---including Jacob, tony and PUSH think that Sinclair controls Cunningham. I don't disagree. I just said that the situation in those cities does not disprove what was said elsewher about the limits on duopolies in the regulation.

BTW one strong rumor I heard today is that we may see a short exension to SHVIA with the new congress hammering out the differences in the various bills. I am NOT saying it is true. Just reporting it as specualtion.

[MSoper72]

I've read in another forum that the extension will be granted and we shall keep our super stations, but I would like a confirmation on this though..

[Hoobastank]

so whats the latest word on our superstations dilemma? Congress has left the building, will we keep them or what?

If I was in Congress, I'd push a bill that would allow a customer to choose programming form any DMA they choose. Wouldn't that make life simpler for us satellite folk? Hey wait a minute... I'll write my senator right now, I'm sure he'll take the time to read my suggestions!

[Jacob S]

Its not about making us happy but about making the big wigs and big corporations that pay all the big taxes happy.

[Geronimo]

A Version of SHVIRA passedas part of an omnibus bill last night. It seems that you can keep your supers.

[Mike123abc]

It looks like they were extended through 2009 if I read the bill correctly, hard to say since a lot of it was just amendments to the old law with language like strike this and add this phrase.

[Hoobastank]

Glad it was renewed. It should be a permanent thing, IMO, but I'll settle for this for now.

Back during the Viacom showdown, I would have switched to D* if they carried the supers. Since SHVIRA was renewed, do you think they'll reconsider carrying those stations? Not that I'm interested in switching anymore...

[James Long]

It looks like they were extended through 2009 if I read the bill correctly, hard to say since a lot of it was just amendments to the old law with language like strike this and add this phrase.Of the 321 pages in section J, 107 are SHVERA. A cleaned up version is expected on Monday or Tuesday. It looks like they took a version of what was on the table and simply scratched and pasted it in to HR4818. SHVERA becomes Title IX of the omnibus.

Supers are extended 5 more years.
Note that this is permission, not requirement. D* doesn't have to add supers.

They have crossed out some of the pending bill that was HR4518 amongst others, but for this thread sufice it to say "Supers Remain".

JL

[scottchez]

Still no UPN or superstaions, My 1 year is up with Direct TV, Im going b ack to Dishnetwork.

THere is NO upn over the air in Omaha.

[twillers]

I posted something similar in the satelliteguys.us forum. It is posted at the following.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=56351
I've been paying for the super station package since I signed up in early 99. Had to if I wanted WWOR & WPIX. I live in metro NY, and they are local stations to me, if I used an antenna or cable. By pure coincidence I just found out those 2 channel are now part of the local channels. I have been paying for the super package all this time when I didn't need to.