FCC Ruling 3-2

[SamSpade]

Okay,
With the FCC ruling- that means Bonneville can take posession of KSFI, KQMB, KRSP, and KUTR.

Now here's an interesting thing. . .
(from Reuters)
The FCC also took steps to prevent radio companies from dominating markets by revamping how markets are defined and left intact the maximum number of radio stations a company can own, up to eight in markets where there are 45 radio stations.
------------------------
So, in SLC the market area has been redefined? Does this now mean that stations licensed to Nephi, Manti, Oakley, Randolph, Evanston... etc are part of the "metro area". Can't wait for DSPete or someone else "in the know" to answer!

[utradioguidecom]

I know I'm not sure.

But this I do know: They'll use the law in whatever way they can to best benefit them.

You can't say "KMXU shows up in the SLC arbs so therefore it's a Salt Lake City station." Although this is true, more or less, what about Cheyenne where KOA Denver frequently appears in the ratings? You can't say that KOA is a Cheyenne station, therefore Clear Channel is down one, right?

Or maybe so? Anyway, whatever's in place, will likely be grandfathered. I also noticed something about ad sales agreements, but I need to look into that more.

DSpete? x? Others? What's your thoughts? That's the impression I got.

[admin]

If I'm reading correctly JSA's will count against companies like Mercury and Clear Channel so I'm taking that as you will see them split apart which I have heard Mercury wants out of the agreement anyway. And if the person that sent me that info could clarify I would appreciate.
I'm sure Bonneville will take over the stations from Simmons very soon now and IF the rumors of Simmons looking at some Millcreek stations are true I bet that happens very soon so Simmons can rebuild. Now as for metro markets if you look at let's say KPKK and it's contour range it will actually be in the Salt Lake Area (one quick note KPKK's (CP) expired today June 2 and I believe there is a time limit to sign-on after a CP expires?) Contour Map and info here
svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=63557 Acrobat Reader
needed!!
So does the FCC take that as if it is considered a SLC station??
I"m not sure if this is what everyone wanted me to comment on but as for the new rulings I think it will hurt us the listener!! But it should turn out to be an interesting summer ahead.
OH now tell me how this works!!
KBNZ 104.9 has requested from the FCC to lower it's power from 99kw to 7.82kw changing it from a class c station to a class c2 the reason for the change is because there is not adequate power to supply KBNZ and the new co-located Franklin Idaho station which will share the same tower as KBNZ in Tremonton Utah both owned by 3 Points Media now is that new station going to be for the Idaho market OR will it it be mostly for the a Utah market you decide also noted on the Translator apps Millcreek has applied for a North Salt Lake one @ 104.9 so maybe they are confident they will get it and throw KBNZ on that which will increase the coverage anyway?
I might not be making sense with this thread If not I am sorry I've had some very long days with very little sleep lately trying to make a big personal decision on some stuff that will change alot for me and my family and I'm not sure which direction I should take

DSPete

[SamSpade]

Made sense to me! KBNZ's signal has been pretty nil here for me in SLC lately anyway, but that's a unique thing for sure.

[Doh]

Welcome to the all new and improved (bigger) world of Clear Channel

[Scott Fybush]

Actually, the new rules are potentially bad news for Clear Channel. They replace the contour-overlap rules that have been in place since 1996 with a more streamlined Arbitron-market-defined set of rules.

Under the old way of doing things, every station has its own "market" associated with it, defined by the number of signals which overlap with its signal. So a station like KSL, which blankets most of Utah, operates in a "market" that probably has 140 other stations in it. By contrast, KBNZ might have three or four other stations in its "market," and KNRS might have 40 or 50.

It was a system that favored those with very good lawyers and engineering consultants - and it was the system that made abuses like Minot, N.D. possible (Clear Channel was able to buy six of the eight commercial signals there by including the coverage of several big-signal AMs from more than 100 miles away that overlapped the Minot stations' "markets.")

The old system also excluded JSAs and LMAs from consideration against the ownership caps, which allowed CC to get away with spinning off stations to companies like Chase Media, then LMA'ing them or JSA'ing them right back.

Under the new rules, all the "overlap" criteria go away (though existing clusters will be grandfathered, and may even be able to be sold in their entirety to minority or female buyers.)

Now, the market will be defined by which stations consider themselves "home" to that particular Arbitron market. And in the case of the KBNZ tower and the new Idaho-licensed station there, it's entirely possible that KBNZ may "home" to SLC while the other station "homes" to Idaho (if there's even an appropriate Arbitron market to home to up there.) It's completely arbitrary and subject to change at the discretion of Arbitron and the stations that do business with it.

And because JSA/LMA exceptions to cluster limits aren't going to be grandfathered (so far as I can tell), the new rules will force Clear Channel to end some of those agreements in the markets where it has them - including the Mercury arrangement in SLC.

It will also mean that some of the company's bigger clusters will have to be split among more than one owner whenever they're sold, which reduces their value to the company.

(This is equally true of the Simmons cluster, which I'm pretty sure would be above the limit if it had been created under the new rules instead of the old; the station sales to Bonneville make that question irrelevant anyway.)

Clear Channel is apparently none too happy with the way the rules ended up, as a matter of fact...which brings me around to the question about Cheyenne and KOA. As I understand the rules (which haven't been formally published, anyway), a station like KOA can only "home" to one market, which would be Denver. So KOA can't be used to increase the number of stations in the Cheyenne "market," which will thus decrease in total number of stations, thus reducing the cap on how many stations any individual owner can hold there. Sounds OK to me...

[BeefByproduct]

Scott is right.

Clear Channel didn't like the FCC decision. Their take on it is on the CC web page.

My CC connection: my sister used to work for them.