The “Channels” (plural) was that the original MCS option only proposed ONE extra commercial channel, but regional broadcasters pledged to help with SBS transmissions so that each market had 4 channels, hence the plural in channels.
I don’t ever recall MCS about being able to provide three commercial channels back then.
The MCS proposal sounds a bit like the situation in several small TV markets in Canada (where such operations were – and still are – called twinsticks and triple-sticks):
History[edit]
Twinsticks were first allowed in 1967, as a way to help expand CTV service to smaller markets. In the original twinstick model, the second station was a rebroadcaster of a CTV station in a larger market, to which the small market’s existing CBC affiliate would be granted the advertising sales rights.
As the company’s advertising revenue grew, the CTV transmitter would eventually become an originating station in its own right, and in theory would eventually be sold to another broadcaster. However, in many cases the subsequent sale never happened, as the community’s economic growth failed to lend itself to competition between multiple television broadcasters. In other markets where the CRTC had licensed competing broadcasters, such as Northern Ontario, twinstick mergers were subsequently allowed to permit the survival of both television stations after similar economic difficulties were encountered.
With the cross-national consolidation of media ownership, nearly all of the original twinstick stations no longer share ownership with their former twin stations. However, the second type of twinstick, involving media consolidation in larger markets, began to arise in the 1990s.
Small markets[edit]
Up until February 2010, twinsticks of this type outside of Quebec involved CTV and CBC Television affiliates. Currently both small-market twinsticks in English Canada consist of Global and CTV affiliates.
- Lloydminster – CITL and CKSA (Stingray Group)
- Thunder Bay – CHFD and CKPR (Dougall Media)
Within Quebec, twinsticks consist of TVA and V affiliates:
From 1997 to 2002, CTV directly owned several CBC twinstick stations that it had inherited from Baton Broadcasting (CKNC, CHNB, CJIC and CFCL in Northern Ontario, which were part of the MCTV system, and CKBI and CKOS in Saskatchewan); these were sold to the CBC in 2002. Similarly, until August 2008, Cogeco owned three twinsticks in Quebec: CKTV and CFRS in Saguenay, CKSH and CFKS in Sherbrooke and CKTM and CFKM in Trois-Rivières. These twinsticks were dissolved when Radio-Canada decided to acquire its former affiliates (CKTV, CKSH and CKTM), while the V affiliates (CFRS, CFKS and CFKM) were acquired by Remstar Corporation, the new owner of V (then known as TQS).
One “triple-stick” also exists, in which a single company, Télé Inter-Rives, operates all three licensed stations in Rivière-du-Loup: CKRT, CIMT and CFTF. RNC Media also formerly had an effective “triple-stick” in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region of Quebec, with ownership of CFEM-DT (TVA) and CKRN-DT (Radio-Canada) in the city of Rouyn-Noranda and CFEM-DT (V) in Val-d’Or — although technically licensed to separate cities, in actual practice all three stations served both cities through rebroadcast transmitters. As of 2018, however, CKRN is no longer in operation. These unusual situations arise because of the unique circumstances of francophone television stations in Quebec: with virtually no sources for syndicated programming, the stations are effectively constrained to network programming at virtually all times, meaning that despite being owned by a single company, the stations are still able to meet the guiding principles behind the CRTC’s policies on media ownership.
Source: Wikipedia
MCS seems pretty similar to the current day solus monopoly markets that missed out on aggregation (i.e. Griffith, SA).
I vaguely recall some talk about regional stations footing the cost to extend SBS to their areas as an alternative to aggregation but I’m not sure how that tied in with MCS. Given that MCS was only intended to be an interim stage and that after a few years the 2nd and 3rd new channels in each market would be sold off in competition to – which would probably have evolved into an aggregation model anyway, so I’m not sure how one of those channels being SBS would have fitted into that.
I’m sure the existing regional TV operators were hoping with their MCS proposal that after implementation they could turn it from a “a few years” to a decade or more before they had to sell off their second channel to a competitor.
… nope … the proposal was for an initial ONE extra channel followed by a third … in the case of major markets like Canberra, the third would be up and running in a couple of years, later in smaller markets …
… nope … no intention whatever to sell off … why on earth would any sane company invite competition when they could have the market to themselves?
… absolute tosh … MCS would have been a legislated alternative to aggregation not an “interim” solution …
I’m only going by the brochure that the regional stations put out at the time which I have posted above
… that was when “panic” mode set in … Hawke was determined to introduce aggregation to keep Packer happy and there were rumblings that a group was about to break ranks … hence the unwanted option set out in that release in a desperate attempt to slow things down … I can assure you (I was there and part of it) that nobody in regional television wanted that to happen …
There was definitely talk about SBS being provided and there only being 4 channels.
Whether that was under another name (and not MCS), I don’t recall that detail.
MCS was one of the legislative options for regional commercial television equalisation set out in the DoTaC white paper in 1985 … SBS was not included …
I put the Question to WIN’s PR company last week what happens with NRN (Northern NSW) post July 1 & they got back to me to say nothing will change & a new deal with TEN will be signed for Northern NSW
That’s interesting… thanks for that.
In a way, probably other than selling to ViacomCBS & integrating with Ten metro, that’s the best outcome I could hope for, the worst thing to happen was it to be sold back to SCA.
SCA have no interest in the TV arm, probably Nine Ent. knew that & had to get out.
Might as well. Pretty sure it still makes a profit.
‘All Australian News’ (if it still exists) will be on both WIN owned Nine and Ten affiliates across the country.
Are there any areas in northern NSW that can receive both the NNSW and SNSW stations?
Comparing Friday’s announcement with the 2016 Nine-SCA one, last time there was a clear statement that the Nine branding would be used, while this time it just says content from Nine’s channels.
If WIN had agreed to rebrand to Nine, I’d expect that would’ve been in the announcement.
@KevinPerry, where did TV Blackbox get the info that the channels would be Nine-branded? Did Nine &/or WIN confirm this (I hope so), or may it be a misunderstanding of the promotion of Nine assets (e.g. Stan) part of the announcement?
Good question. We know how vague press releases can be. For all we know it could just be a primary WIN branded channel like before.
Maybe we will just have to wait until July 1 to find out for sure!