{
  "id": "R44892",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44892",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 586046,
      "date": "2017-07-18",
      "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:18:09.799211",
      "title": "Sinclair Broadcast Group Acquisition of Tribune Media: Competitive and Regulatory Issues",
      "summary": "On May 8, 2017, Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. announced that it agreed to acquire the Tribune Media Company for $6.6 billion, including $3.9 billion for Tribune\u2019s stock, and the assumption of $2.7 billion of Tribune\u2019s debt. The transaction, if approved by shareholders and the U.S. government, would make Sinclair the nation\u2019s largest television broadcast company, giving it access to a far larger share of U.S. households than any other television broadcaster.\nBoth the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must approve Sinclair\u2019s transactions before they can close. The DOJ is to review the transaction to ensure that it will not substantially reduce competition. The FCC is to review whether the transaction would (1) violate FCC broadcast media ownership rules and (2) serve the public interest.\nThe Sinclair-Tribune transaction potentially runs afoul of two FCC rules regarding broadcast ownership:\nlocal television ownership rules (sometimes referred to as the \u201cduopoly\u201d rules), which limit common ownership of television stations serving the same geographic region; and\nthe FCC\u2019s national television ownership rules, which cap the reach of a single company\u2019s television stations to 39% of U.S. television households.\nRecent rule and policy changes determining how the FCC defines ownership and television household reach, however, may allow Sinclair to own and/or operate more Tribune stations than it might otherwise.\nIn February 2017, the FCC\u2019s Media Bureau rescinded previous guidance that it would closely scrutinize any proposed transactions that included certain types of operational and financial agreements between two separately owned stations. \nIn April 2017, the FCC reversed a previous decision to eliminate the \u201cUHF discount,\u201d which discounts by half the total number of television viewers reached by UHF stations for the purpose of enforcing its national ownership rule.\nSinclair is the largest producer of local news in the country. If government agencies approve Sinclair\u2019s acquisition of Tribune without modifications, the 233 stations that would be owned or operated by Sinclair could reach 72% of the 114.7 million households receiving television over-the-air or via cable or satellite. The two companies own or operate stations in 14 common markets. Current FCC ownership rules address the overlaps in 12 of those 14 markets. \nNevertheless, current FCC rules do not preclude Sinclair from entering into operational and financial agreements with third-party stations in two of those 12 markets: Wilkes-Barre, PA, and Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News, VA. The DOJ might preclude such arrangements on antitrust grounds.\nThe ability of broadcast television stations to produce and distribute local news sets them apart from other electronic media, such as online video distributors, national television networks, and cable and satellite operators. Thus, in addition to the traditional competition analysis that both the DOJ and FCC are to undertake when reviewing the Sinclair-Tribune transaction, the potential scale and scope of Sinclair\u2019s news operations will require a public interest review by the FCC.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44892",
          "sha1": "405aca4170cfe95471212a78b94f8282906e54a9",
          "filename": "files/20170718_R44892_405aca4170cfe95471212a78b94f8282906e54a9.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44892_files&id=/2.png": "files/20170718_R44892_images_be6a61c58a0867860b11c64ec2fd84e1bb82a42b.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44892_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170718_R44892_images_96f8d955cdcd0af3488286b5d6ee3d7e44e0b3d1.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44892_files&id=/1.png": "files/20170718_R44892_images_e0d1c440724519101b2d0140eb94f5e885fc59f9.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44892",
          "sha1": "1d46e1fa1b0cabe921f9f66b34296e1835181c8c",
          "filename": "files/20170718_R44892_1d46e1fa1b0cabe921f9f66b34296e1835181c8c.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4805,
          "name": "Competition Policy & Law"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4816,
          "name": "Rulemaking & Judicial Review"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4871,
          "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Internet and Telecommunications Policy"
  ]
}