Question about local stations

[Markxxx]

I don't like it but I can see why stations wouldn't want other stations muscling into their territory.

If you own a gas station, a Starbucks, or anything, franchised they promise you a territory. If anyone can go into your territory what is the point? In that case the networks should do away with affiliates and run their networks like other cable channels. Or now that digital is here, the FCC could just give each network one channel number exclusive for each network And that network could set up repeaters across the nation. Thus no need for affiliates at all.

In the US currently the ownership cap is 39% of the total population (of Nielsen Defined Markets). UHF stations currently count at a rate of one half. Duopolies in the same city do not count at all, nor do full power licensed repeaters.

After the transition to digital TV is complete (however that is defined) the big Four (FOX, ABC, NBC, and CBS) will lose the UHF discount. Then gradually the UHF discount will be done away with for everyone.

 

[newsmark]

Thus no need for affiliates at all.

Yes and no. You're right that "technically" the networks could distribute their signals without affiliates.

The most popular channels, cable or otherwise, are always the ones with a strong local identity. That's why the station/network partnership has worked pretty well for so long.

But the partnership is deteriorating. With networks distributing so much through cable, iTunes, the internet, etc., it's only a matter of time before at least one network decides to drop all affiliates, except maybe the ones it owns. It'll be interesting to watch, although very sad because a lot of good local news departments will shut down, people will lose jobs and the American public will not be served as well as they are now. (Unless stations start developing more local programs NOW!)

 

[livingfruitvirus]

I don't like it but I can see why stations wouldn't want other stations muscling into their territory.

If you own a gas station, a Starbucks, or anything, franchised they promise you a territory. If anyone can go into your territory what is the point? In that case the networks should do away with affiliates and run their networks like other cable channels. Or now that digital is here, the FCC could just give each network one channel number exclusive for each network And that network could set up repeaters across the nation. Thus no need for affiliates at all.

But these networks only broadcast a few hours a day. The rest of the programming is up to the local stations. And since they're not all owned by the same company but by dozens of different ones, you'd never get them to go along with such a plan.

Yes and no. You're right that "technically" the networks could distribute their signals without affiliates.

The most popular channels, cable or otherwise, are always the ones with a strong local identity. That's why the station/network partnership has worked pretty well for so long.

But the partnership is deteriorating. With networks distributing so much through cable, iTunes, the internet, etc., it's only a matter of time before at least one network decides to drop all affiliates, except maybe the ones it owns. It'll be interesting to watch, although very sad because a lot of good local news departments will shut down, people will lose jobs and the American public will not be served as well as they are now. (Unless stations start developing more local programs NOW!)

We've already had networks drop affiliates, but those affiliates either went indie or picked up a new affiliation.

Local television won't be shutting down for a long, long time. The method in which it's delivered might change, but we need a source for live, local news and information. We're not like the rest of the world outside North America, which has nationalized all their media. We still have strong local infrastructures and economies.