What Sinclair Wants To Do In Birmingham

bobvick

Pub Member / Supporter
Original poster
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2006
4,471
2,169
Northwest Alabama
Has anyone here heard what Sinclair wants to do in Birmingham to get their Allbritton deal through?
They propose to relinquish the licenses of WCFT and WJSU the two full power satellites of the LP ABC affiliate WBMA, that cover 2/3 of the state. They then propose to do a facility swap and move their WTTO the CW affiliate and WABM the MY station to the WBMA+ facility. They plan to move the ABC affiliate to WABM 68, the markets LOWEST rated station since it came on in 1986. Why they would move ABC to thus station rather than the more powerful and higher rated WTTO 21 makes no sense. Through a SSA, Sinclair controls WDBB 17 which is a satellite of WTTO. Of course it makes no sense either to shut down the two stations 33 and 40 that are the markets second and sometimes third most watched. I hope the FCC stops this deal, however I doubt they will. I think it would serve Sinclair right if ABC balked at getting moved to channel 68 and some way ended up on WUOA 23, the University of Alabama's full power satellite of WVUA-CA 7. WUOA's transmitter is on Red Mountain in Birmingham with the others, and it covers the entire market.
 
WUOA is on channel 6 and has very poor coverage of the market. ABC would not want to land there.

This is one heck of a bluff by Sinclair. And maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think it will work. The FCC can reject sales that are not in the public interest, and I have to think “buying highly rated network affiliated stations [in at least one case with very highly-regarded weather department] solely to shut them down” won’t pass as “in the public interest.” I could be wrong, but that’s my read on it.

- Trip
 
True, WVUA/WUOA is on RF 6. Another funny thing I read is Sinclair is telling the FCC they are shutting down 33/40 because WABM/WTTO has "superior" facilities. That is funny because when they were trying to just sell 68, they were going to move WTTO to Hoover to the 33/40 facility because at the time it was "superior." Sounds like a bunch of hogwash. Allbritton built that station in Hoover from the ground up in 1996. WCFT broadcasts from the tallest tower in Alabama located in Wyndham Springs, it is over 2,000 feet tall. No way is the WTTO/WABM " facility" is better. I suppose as far as branding goes, if the FCC was stupid enough to play into Sinclair's greedy hands, they could brand ABC 36, and get a waiver to map PSIP to 36 since that is WABM's broadcast channel. It will destroy the 33/40 brand though that has earned a good reputation for nearly 18 years. All of this just for Sinclair to get WJLA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Two different "superior facilities."

WABM and WTTO are centrally located in the market, with all the other TV stations. WJSU and WCFT are not. From a transmission location point of view, they are superior.

On the other hand, I would be very willing to believe the studio equipment and facilities of WCFT/WJSU is newer and therefore superior to that of WTTO/WDBB/WABM. And there would be nothing stopping them from keeping the studio facilities and killing the signals of 33/40. (I assume they'd keep WBMA-LD, since low-power signals do not contribute to ownership caps.)

I'll be very interested to see what comes of this.

- Trip
 
Thanks for the "superior" facilities definition. Makes more sense now, well not really sense, this is Sinclair we are talking about :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm just glad none of the stations in Detroit are owned by Sinclair. We know by all the disputes they've had with the TV providers that they are greedy and will do anything to get what they want.
 
In Minneapolis the CW is owned by Sinclair and a couple months ago they FINALLY went HD on the syndicated (non network) stuff
 
Last night, after I went to bed, I thought even more about it, and the more I thought about it, the less sense I thought Sinclair’s argument made. Even selling WABM by itself, there was nobody at all interested in buying it? Raycom and Media-General/LIN both have duopolies in various locations, and neither one was interested in having one in Birmingham? Birmingham passes the “eight voices” test:

1. WBRC (Raycom)
2. WBIQ/WCIQ (APT)
3. WVTM (Media-General or sold)
4. WUOA (UOA)
5. WCFT/WJSU and WTTO/WDBB (Sinclair)
6. WIAT (LIN or sold)
7. WPXH (ION)
8. WTJP (TBN)

So Raycom, Media-General, or the buyer of either WVTM or WIAT (whichever station is not kept by the new Media-General) could theoretically have bought WABM outright (note I didn't list it above). None were interested? Even with the ability to outright own it instead of using a JSA/SSA type deal? Something doesn’t smell right to me.

In Charleston, there are definitely not eight voices. But I thought WMMP/WTAT had a grandfathered LMA, and as such the LMA could have been kept in place by a potential new owner, such as Gray, who has been buying stations left and right. I thought in the initial restructuring of the sale, they proposed selling WMMP and the WTAT LMA rights to a third party as a pair, so it would be the two together. Was Gray not interested? They just bought stand-alone Fox station KEVN in the much smaller Rapid City market, and Charleston is right in Gray’s neck of the woods. Did they not want a Fox/My duopoly in Charleston? Did nobody else?

Am I missing something here?

- Trip
 
If they were able to get it at a decent price, I can't imagine that Raycom, would not have been interested in getting WABM to have a duopoly with WBRC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Is it possible to get Mankato, MN from Rochester, MN?

Sinclair TV launching Sports Network

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)