Sorry, Tomás, wrong again. I covered the XETV/KCST matter in the article I wrote at the UHF History site (which, BTW, will be back online as part of David's World Radio History site as soon as his IT guy can configure the space on the server for it). Since I am the author, I will quote the relevant paragraphs of the article verbatim; "fair use" does not apply in this case.
-----
But it was in November of 1968 that KCST began one of the most significant battles in the history of San Diego television.
Since 1956, the ABC television network had been affiliated with XETV/6, licensed to Tijuana, as its San Diego market affiliate; because this required the transmission of network programming across the Mexican border to XETV's transmitter, the FCC had to annually renew the international authorization for that transmission. When that authorization came up for renewal in 1968, KCST petitioned the Commission to deny the ABC application for its extension, essentially cutting the network off from channel 6 unless it wanted to go back to sending film copies to Mexico and forego any live news or sports coverage in the San Diego market, as it had done for the first two years of the affiliation.
KCST made no secret of its belief that if ABC was denied permission to continue feeding XETV the network would have to affiliate with channel 39, since KFMB-TV and KOGO-TV already held the CBS and NBC affiliations for the market. In filing for the denial, KCST noted that the original grant had only been found to serve the public interest because in 1956 there was no "operating or authorized third television station in the San Diego area by which such [third network] choice would be provided." It also reminded the Commission that both of the San Diego VHFs had appealed that authorization and the court had ordered a hearing to determine how XETV's non-network programming would serve the public interest; after the hearing the FCC "excused such factors" as 90% entertainment programming, a small amount of Spanish-language broadcasts and a "lack of public-service broadcasts and local origination." KCST maintained that XETV's programming had not improved in the intervening thirteen years.
As might be expected, both XETV and ABC were furious. XETV rebutted the programming argument made by KCST as "false and distorted" but gave no specific examples of how it had improved; ABC said a switch in affiliations would result in its programs reaching 110,300 fewer television homes in the market, based on the relative coverage of the two stations plus cable carriage of its own KABC-TV/7 from Los Angeles. ABC's research department said that would result in an annual loss to the network "in excess of $1 million" which it said it could not absorb since it was already losing money. The Commission opened the matter up for hearings in July of the following year, at which KCST's rebuttal to the network was that it had lost approximately $650,000 in 1968 all by itself.
In February 1970 the application to increase ERP to 2,238kw was approved, over the objections of XETV's Mexican licensee and its U.S. sales affiliate. XETV fought back via the KCST petition by claiming channel 39 had engaged in
ex parte communications by asking a California state senator to submit a letter supporting their affiliation with ABC; KCST claimed the senator had sent the letter directly to the FCC contrary to their request to receive the letter themselves. The Commission rejected XETV's claims on May 15, saying there was no "carelessness or gross negligence" on KCST's part.
An initial decision on the ABC affiliation came down from Administrative Law Judge James F. Tierney in May 1971 which recommended that the authorization to feed XETV be renewed, subject to an annual accounting of ABC because of their claimed potential hardship if forced to affiliate with KCST and an annual report by XETV listing all pre-emptions of network programming. However, one year later, the FCC declared the XETV affiliation with ABC to not be in the public interest and denied the renewal of ABC's cross-border transmission authorization, overriding ALJ Tierney's ruling. The Commission said Tierney had given "too much weight" to ABC's financial arguments and that KCST's argument that it was now the "third station", the absence of which originally had created the need to affiliate with a non-U.S. station, was considered the crucial point. ABC was given until July 31, 1972 to sever the affiliation agreement with XETV; not surprisingly, the network and channel 6 filed appeals less than one month before the deadline.
The appellate court upheld the FCC decision at the beginning of 1973 and denied XETV's request for a rehearing three weeks later, at which point XETV made a last-ditch attempt to discredit KCST by filing a brief claiming that channel 39 had no news staff and broadcast no "significant" public affairs programming. KCST's response was simple and brief: XETV had no standing to request a remand and their latest filing was therefore an abuse of FCC processes. Before the Commission could respond to XETV's latest filing, though, ABC announced that it had executed a memorandum of understanding with KCST for affiliation and requested that they be allowed to continue feeding XETV until July in order to negotiate the formal affiliation contract with channel 39. XETV subsequently agreed to the deal and two ABC daytime shows not being cleared on channel 6 began airing on KCST April 1, 1973; the rest of the daytime schedule moved on June 1, and the remaining network lineup one month later.
-----
So, no, Tomás, the ABC affiliation with KCST was
not brought about by anything NBC or KGTV-related. In fact, ABC itself moved the affiliation to channel 10 three years later and channel 39 then took NBC. It did not become a network O&O until 1996 ... more than 20 years after XETV lost ABC. (Anyone who wants to read the full article before the UHF site comes back online, will find it at
this link to the Wayback Machine.)
I did research your claim of Mexico City affiliations with the American TV networks, and did find evidence of same back in the 1960s and 1970s, but those appear to have been only for sporting events, such as the World Series, and those agreements were unaffected by the XETV matter, so the conclusion you presumed is also erroneous.
www.rbr.com
