Or does the SCOTUS ruling mean no more waivers for Cox and Cox will have to divest something, like the AJC?
There was no specific statement outlawing waivers, so my understanding is that they remain at the discretion of the Commission.
Technically speaking, they didn't actually issue a ruling. They declined to review the case, and issued no comment at all. So that should mean the present rules stand.
Thanks. I don't know the exact terms of Cox's waiver, except that it exists and that it has some bearing on Cox's plans to move in WSBB (and, presumably, WSRV), but I was wondering if there was some kind of language in it that was dependent on the final outcome of this case (i.e., Cox only had a waiver while the matter was in the courts).
Interestingly, there seems to be some increasing divergence between ajc.com and the physical and electronic versions of the actual AJC newspaper (see https://www.ajcdelivers.com/elogin
). Many stories and features in the physical and electronic versions of the paper never make it to ajc.com, and the update cycle is quite different. Could Cox be preparing to spin off the paper itself while retaining an online-only ATL news presence via ajc.com (and other Cox Media sites)?