FCC Targets Sinclair Sidecar Deals In 3 Mkts.

In a move that could be trouble for Sinclair's previously announced purchase of Allbritton Communications, the Media Bureau says Sinclair's plans to spin off stations in Charleston, Birmingham and Harrisburg to sidecar operators would violate commission rules.

The FCC’s Media Bureau has alleged that the sidecar transactions that Sinclair Broadcast Group has proposed in three markets as part of its $985-million pending acquisition of Allbritton Communications  — Charleston, S.C., Birmingham, Ala., and Harrisburg, Pa. — would violate agency ownership rules.

Under the deals at issue, Sinclair is proposing to take over the Allbritton ABC affiliates in those markets, spin off one of its existing stations in the markets to sidecar companies, in transactions that would give Sinclair some control over at least some operations of multiple TV stations in each market.

In a letter Friday to Sinclair, however, FCC Video Division Chief Barbara Kreisman said the way the deals were structured, Sinclair would lose grandfathered protections that it previously had that allow it to operate more than one TV station in each market through local marketing agreements. LMAs, which essentially allowed broadcasters to operate multiple stations in a market completely, are no longer legal.

“In three of the markets — Charleston, Birmingham and Harrisburg — the proposed transactions would result in the elimination of the grandfathered status of certain local marketing agreements and thus cause the transactions to violate our local TV ownership rules,” Kreisman said in her letter.

Kreisman also asked Sinclair to provide the agency with financial data showing that its sidecar partners in the three markets are genuinely running the programming operations of the stations.

A Sinclair source said the company intended to respond to Kreisman’s concerns “and we anticipate being able to work out all of the issues raised by the FCC,” and added that “it’s not uncommon for the FCC to seek further information about transaction details.”

BRAND CONNECTIONS

A communications attorney with knowledge of the situation predicted that the FCC would require Sinclair to restructure the LMAs as shared services agreements, arrangements that allow a broadcaster to run virtually all of the operations, except programming, for multiple stations. SSAs are legal.

This attorney also said Sinclair would provide the FCC with financial documentation to demonstrate that the sidecar operators in the three markets “are getting something out of this, that this is not a simple ruse.”

Matt Wood, policy director for the watchdog Free Press, said: “We’re glad that the FCC is looking into the shady tactics that Free Press and others have brought to light in Sinclair’s deals. We look forward to the answers, and hope the commission will keep digging if and when Sinclair’s responses raise more questions than they resolve.”

American Cable Association President-CEO Matthew M. Polka responded to the news: “ACA is pleased that the FCC’s Media Bureau is closely scrutinizing the Sinclair-Allbritton deal.  This level of inspection is appropriate and necessary given the issues identified by the bureau and because the deal would permit Sinclair to increase its already prodigious market power over retransmission consent in two local TV markets through coordination agreements with stations owned separately in name only.”


Comments (5)

Leave a Reply

Don Thompson says:

December 6, 2013 at 4:48 pm

Looks like the cashcasters’ “shady tactics,” as Free Press modestly calls them, are getting a closer look from the FCC. Looks like Sinclair’s rule-breaking is not so “unmeritorious” as NAB put it in a recent jeremiad to the Commission. If NAB’s TV station owners continue to ply the FCC with virtual arguments in support of wanton disregard for federal regulations, I think I need to “coin” a new phrase: how about bitcoincasters ?

Joanne McDonald says:

December 6, 2013 at 5:11 pm

My idea and my recommendation for any concession to Sinclair acquisition of Allbritton is that my idea is that Sinclair gives full total control of WHP/WLYH in Harrisburg, PA to Nexstar in exchange for full total control of WFXR/WWCW in Roanoke, VA from Nexstar’s acquisition of Grant stations to Sinclair with Sinclair having an option of giving KBTV/KFDM in Beaumont, TX, KEYE in Austin, TX, and WOAI/KABB/KMYS in San Antonia, to Nexstar in the same trading and swapping deal for Sinclair and Nexstar between Sinclair’s WHP and LMA for WLYH and Nexstar acquisition of Grant stations WFXR and WWCW since those stations are much closer to Nexstar headquarters in Irving, TX. Sinclair could use WABM as a way to transmit WBMA ABC and local programming on their DT2 digital channel in full widescreen HDTV while continuing to carry their own programming on their DT1 digital channel in full widescreen HDTV throughout the entire Birmingham, AL city proper in the modern age of digital television technologies.

Roger Lyons says:

December 6, 2013 at 6:42 pm

Where was the FCC when it allowed the Barrington deal with no interference, and a couple of the overlaps in that deal were more extreme than the Allbritton case. The FCC is looking two-faced here.

Don Thompson says:

December 7, 2013 at 10:23 am

Recent letter to FCC from NAB: http://rbr.com/nab-responds-to-aca-mediacom-retrans-filings/

NAB: “The FCC Has Properly Recognized that It Lacks Authority to Adopt the Biased Rules that Cable Wants”
FCC: Time to send Sinclair our newest letter.
NAB: “Despite Cable Arguments, Evidence that Joint Negotiation of Retransmission Agreements Actually Harms Consumers is Lacking”
FCC: Barry Faber, please check your inbox.
NAB: The Commission Cannot Ignore Cable Market Power
FCC: “We write to inform the parties that certain applications must be amended or withdrawn in order to bring the proposed transactions into compliance with our local TV ownership rules.”

solange attwood says:

December 9, 2013 at 1:51 pm

Whatever you choose to call them, SSAs or otherwise, they increase the market power of the broadcaster. If that’s the intention of Congress and the FCC then so be it. However, it that is not the intended outcome, the Commission has to take a closer look at these kinds of deals.