Sinclair Broadcast Group and Tribune Media call allegations that their combined power after their $3.9 billion merger would allow the new entity to delay the television channel repack, “absurd and unfounded.” They defend their planned deal, asserting their need to combine to survive the competitive media landscape. “Each of the petitioners is either trying to use this proceeding to stifle competition for its own economic interests, or is still living in a pre-cable, pre-internet, pre-smartphone world, untethered from the economic realities of the current media market,” said both companies in a response to Petitions to Deny filed with the FCC late Tuesday evening.
The Rural Broadband Association and the Competitive Carriers Association were among those filing petitions opposing the combo. Each said after combining, Sinclair would own over 200 television stations and since it also owns antenna-maker Dielectric, it would have the power and incentive to seriously delay the pace of the TV channel repack, Inside Towers reported. NTCA, CCA, plus T-Mobile, said Sinclair has tried to delay both the spectrum auction and the subsequent repack numerous times and would do so again.
“These allegations are based on pure speculation and have no basis in the real world. Sinclair has urged the Commission to adopt a repacking plan that will lead to the shortest actual repacking period, rather than pursue a shorter theoretical schedule that does not account for inevitable delays that are beyond the control of any stakeholder, including the FCC,” said Sinclair.
Sinclair says its ownership of antenna manufacturer Dielectric is “irrelevant” to the transaction and reminds the FCC that in the wake of the agency’s pre-auction TV freeze, Dielectric had little business and its owner announced the company would close in June 2013. This raised alarms, even from wireless carriers, noted Sinclair, which bought the company and “absorbed substantial operating losses for many years,” and kept Dielectric going. “Sinclair’s investment in Dielectric at a time when no one wanted it and it was insolvent with no clear prospects for future growth should be seen as a public interest benefit, not a harm.”
August 24, 2017
Reader Interactions