NAB Takes Middle Road On National TV Limits

The trade group tells the FCC it should increase the coverage limit to 78%. Network affiliates, on the other hand, want to limit the networks to 39% for their O&Os, while Nexstar and Sinclair say there is no longer justification for any cap at all.

Trying to balance the interests of its network and affiliate members, the NAB is asking the FCC to raise the effective national ownership cap of all station groups to 78% of TV homes.

Currently, the reach of groups is capped at between 39% and 78% depending on their mix of VHF and UHF stations. That’s because under current rules the reach of UHF stations is discounted by 50%.

The NAB proposal would bump the cap to 78% for all by keeping the nominal 39% cap, but discounting all stations — UHF and VHF — by 50%.

The NAB goes a lot farther than its TV network affiliate members, who, in a separate filing, called for a tighter cap on network-owned groups, and not as far Sinclair and Nexstar, which asked for a complete elimination of the cap.

The proposals came in response to a rulemaking the FCC launch last December to review the ownership limit.

In its comments, the NAB argued that easing the cap is warranted because of the increasingly tough competition broadcasters face from other TV media.

BRAND CONNECTIONS

“Even comparatively large TV station groups are dwarfed by a number of pay-TV/broadband companies and online video providers, let alone the social media giants.

“Yet, unlike broadcasters, these massive companies, many with market capitalizations in the hundreds of billions of dollars, are not subject to national or local structural ownership rules.”

In joint comments, the Big Four network affiliates said the NAB proposal was acceptable for themselves — effectively 78% — but said that the networks should be limited to a true 39% by denying them discounts for either VHF or UHF stations.

The affiliates said they would not object to grandfathering networks that currently exceed the cap.

They claimed that taking the reins off networks would threaten localism; encourage networks to replace affiliates with their own stations in more markets; and give the networks undue leverage in negotiating reverse comp with affiliates.

“[The] imbalance between networks and local stations tilts increasingly in favor of the networks,” the affiliates said.

“A tiered ownership cap will restore some equilibrium to the steadily eroding network-affiliate dynamic and ensure that local stations have the opportunity to participate fully.

“With the commission’s recent liberalization of the local ownership rules, local stations now have the opportunity to begin to achieve, through consolidation, some of the same economies of scale and scope in local markets long enjoyed by the networks nationwide.

“Liberalizing the audience reach cap for non-network owned stations ultimately will benefit competition, diversity, localism — and local viewers.”

Having no apparent fear of the networks, Nexstar and Sinclair argued for no limits.

Eliminating the cap would put broadcasters on “equal footing with other media content providers, such as cable operators, satellite providers and Internet content providers — all of which are unimpeded by similar restrictions,” Sinclair said.

“The national cap is no longer justified to protect localism, competition or diversity, and the tangible benefits of eliminating the national cap far exceed the speculative harms.”

Nexstar delivered the same message: “To say, in the face of the multitudes of choices available to consumers and advertisers today, that a national television audience reach cap is necessary to protect diversity or competition is plainly illogical.”


Comments (4)

Leave a Reply

Matt Hortobagyi says:

March 20, 2018 at 4:25 pm

How crazy is this? By cutting the discount in half for all stations you double the 39% to 78%. You effectively set up a situations that all the stations are effectively are owned by three or four groups.

Deanna Kennedy says:

March 20, 2018 at 4:47 pm

Are we forgetting the REASON for national caps? Cough (public interest?) AND the UHF discount was to encourage UHF station ownership when the spectrum was less than desirable, now its prime real estate and there’s a discount? it’s a topsy turvy world. You want to raise the national cap? Because cable and internet streaming have no limits? Well stream too – there fixed, oh, no national content. got it. Cable has its own long term problems… Life was so much simpler back in the old 7,7 and 7 days. Progress? Not so much.

Brian Bussey says:

March 20, 2018 at 6:13 pm

there is no such thing as localism when big broadcast conglomerates have centralized everything but the Anchors and even that is in jeopardy now that Sin-Pai has blown up the home studio rule. The UHF discount is a lie. Discounted against what VHF? If anything, VHF should have a 50% discount with their terrible broadcast signal. My TV does not have channels named Google, Face Book or You Tube. They are, at best, background noise. You actually don’t believe that people sit in a dark room only scrolling through their gossip feeds ? My kids never put their phones down and never turn their TVs off. Broadcast’s only competition is from corporate offices who think they somehow deserve a share of google or facebooks revenue stream. These corporate types are giving away broadcast TV audience share, not losing it. They say the stock holder beasts must be fed when they, in effect, are the stock holder beasts. . 39% is too high. It should be 33%. America needs more broadcasters not fewer. Retrans dollars should be invested in the markets from which they were generated. Les Moonves is already rich. His position that CBS Network generates over 50% of the local affiliate audience might actually be true. He generates billions from those audience shares in his national spot sales to show for it….

Dan Levitt says:

March 20, 2018 at 6:37 pm

Funny, 2 groups in the last week putting in their 2 cents in the 11th hour when the decision could have been official weeks ago. If anyone remembers – the Tribune Stations all had their own unique, very different Home Pages on the web until they were all changes to one generic page they all used, some stations even had better Web Pages than what they are now. All the local content will soon be generic and not unique to their particular Market. The future of Political Ads becoming Native Ads is already happening – so how are viewers to know when politicians are featured on the news, whether it’s paid for or not? Or the digital/mobile issue of that using Social media (which doesn’t have to be reported on the FCC File). The big Joke is on Sinclair – I hope they get all the stations they want. They may win with increased sales revenue for the short term – but 10 years down the road they will be left holding a bunch of worthless real estate. Sinclair should have dropped the deal and invested the $4 Billion in it’s own Streaming Venue. Not to mention Tribune is virtually Bankrupt again and may Bankrupt Sinclair if the deal is approved.