The licensee of KWSA is objecting to both of the currently pending applications for KPVO. The gist of the argument is that the current KPVO owner (Valleydale) promised to reimburse KWSA's owner (AJB) for having to move in order for KPVO to increase its power. According to AJB, Valleydale hasn't communicated with AJB since and there is no indication that there is anything to commit JJIE (who is of course trying to buy the station) to reimburse AJB for moving expenses.
I'm not well versed in the rules about involuntary changes but I do understand that reimbursement is generally given. It seems to me that this problem could be easily fixed by either Valleydale or JJIE formally committing to the reimbursement costs. Whether that's possible or not I wouldn't even be able to guess. We do have someone here who has definite knowledge of the insides of what's going on and I'd love to hear the inside baseball from the other side of this argument, but I would suggest that posting anything about it while the situation is still pending would probably be a bad idea. I have every intention of having this board here when the situation gets finalized whenever that is and then I hope we can get the whole story.
I hope this doesn't end up derailing the plans JJIE has for Utah County. I'm looking forward to seeing what develops.
Last Edit: Sept 12, 2019 1:35:08 GMT -7 by CAwasinNJ
Having studied the ongoing informal objection between Vic Michael and his alleged former business partner in regards to KNIT 1320, my opinion is that the FCC's process is in serious need of an overhaul. I can't remember when the dispute between Kona Coast and Rocket Radio began, but Rocket has now filed something like four informal objections to the proposed power increase for 1320. There needs to be a limit to how many times a IO can be filed; either that or the FCC needs a better set of parameters for when it's appropriate to file an informal objection. Allowing the process to drag on endlessly for personal disputes that could be better solved elsewhere helps no one.
Any such mechanism for input can be abused but I assure you, as someone who deals with such people each and every day, the regulator needs this avenue for input. If broadcasters had their way, they would work only within their small universe and the stations on the dial would be even worse. As a great character once said:
"Mos Eisley Spaceport. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."
While there is truth to your statement, I don't see how some business dealings that allegedly occurred 10-15 years ago are relevant to a proposed power increase for an AM station in 2019. If you read the informal objections posted at the FCC web site for 1320 KNIT, it's clear that the ones filed by Rocket Radio just reiterate the same content in a different order, and that the person filing the objections has a grudge against Mr. Michael. IMO, that's not an appropriate use of the informal objection process.
Oh the KNIT battle is nothing compared to some of the battles out there. Take a look at Ed Stolz vs. Entercom Sacramento. That argument dates back to 1996. I don't fully understand it, but I've read that the continued objections in the Stolz case are somehow required for him to continue his court cases. Makes no sense to me, but I rarely understand when lawyers are involved. I certainly agree that the objection process can and is abused, but to play devil's advocate at what point should someone be barred from raising an objection? It's not an easy task to quantify. There might be some hope though. The applications process is in the process of being overhauled and maybe things will improve. Someone with better knowledge of the new system (LMS) would have to see.