Why Did the U.S. Government Never Own TV Stations?

[K.M. Richards]

Channel 1 as a virtual designation should be commonly allowed. No technical reason to restrict it.

KAXT-CD in San Francisco is virtual channel 1. It was the compromise reached because KRCB, also in the S.F. market, is virtual channel 22. There are areas where both signals overlap and digital tuners got confused.

(Both stations were on analog 22, but KRCB's transmitter back then was farther north, near Santa Rosa, and they did not have overlapping contours back then.)

I also think channel 37 should be allowed for PSIP identification.

History of UHF Television

www.uhfhistory.com

 

[Mediafrog+]

KAXT-CD in San Francisco is virtual channel 1. It was the compromise reached because KRCB, also in the S.F. market, is virtual channel 22. There are areas where both signals overlap and digital tuners got confused.

Yes, well aware of KAXT-CD. Was arguing that virtual Channel 1 should be in widespread use.

I also think channel 37 should be allowed for PSIP identification.

Fully agree. As long as the actual 608-614 MHz frequency band is kept clear, the radio astronomers won’t care.

Channel 37 virtual TV stations in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kevtronics]

I also think channel 37 should be allowed for PSIP identification.

Sure, but it has no legacy value (to keep a station on the same "channel number" they've always been), nor does it have the cachet of being "channel number one". I highly doubt anyone is going to be clamoring for a virtual channel number of 37.

By all means, allow it. But don't expect anyone to actually use it.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Sure, but it has no legacy value (to keep a station on the same "channel number" they've always been), nor does it have the cachet of being "channel number one". I highly doubt anyone is going to be clamoring for a virtual channel number of 37.

By all means, allow it. But don't expect anyone to actually use it.

For a new station or program service “legacy value” is irrelevant. I’d rather have my new programming on 37.1 rather than being lost among subchannels such as “22.8” or “18.14”.

 

[FreddyE1977]

The United States is the only large country where the national government never put its own TV stations on the air? All the other major countries I can think of have their own television stations, some of them years before they allowed private commercial broadcasting. BBC, CBC, Austalia Broadcasting Corporation, NHK. I believe all of Europe has government-owned television. (I know the Mexican government owns some TV and radio stations too, although I think that was an afterthought. XEW-TV and other commercial stations came first. )

And isn't that the reason we have no Channel 1 on our television sets? Channel 1 was supposed to be for the government, a channel assignment the federal government never claimed?

It's also the reason ABC is on Channel 7 in so many large markets, NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, Detroit. The American Broadcasting Company thought the government would someday claim Channels 2 through 6 and displace all those private broadcasters. Better to be on 7 and not get bumped when the federal and state governments wanted their own TV stations?

It was not seen by most as a proper role of government. Our founding documents envisaged a sort of minimalist government where most functions were reserved for the private sector. In the debates in Congress about funding for the National Road (now US 40), the first highway built by the Federal government, there was very strong opposition which argued that this was not a proper role of government and that the private sector should handle it. That view nearly prevailed.

It's hard to imagine such a thing taking place in most countries but it is sort of woven into the fabric of our Constitution. Secondarily there were concerns related to the First Amendment that any broadcast station owned and operated by the government would be used to broadcast pure propaganda.

Obviously we do have public broadcasting, which was achieved at the state level and by local community groups like the one that founded WQED here in Pittsburgh. Even so Federal funding for them is an issue which has always been contentious.

 

[Don CT]

Now that everything is digital, channel numbers are pretty much meaningless. "1" is now a valid virtual channel number for digital broadcast TV as well.

If your streaming “channels” don’t exist at all.

 

[TheBigA]

It was not seen by most as a proper role of government. Our founding documents envisaged a sort of minimalist government where most functions were reserved for the private sector.

Mainly because the founders were mostly private businessmen. The fact of the matter is the US system was mainly the vision of Herbert Hoover. He wanted to get broadcasting out of the hands of amateurs and into the hands of private business who could use it to make money. The FCC was originally part of the Commerce Department and Hoover was the secretary. This led to the big tech corporations of the time, including General Electric, Westinghouse, RCA, AT&T, and other big corporations driving the creation of the broadcasting industry. The private companies invested the money, so the government didn't have to. The only thing the government asked is that the government retain ownership and control of the spectrum, and the companies would be licensees. Herbert Hoover was the father of corporate radio as we know it today.

Hoover and the Growth of Radio

By Thomas F. Schwartz Secretary Hoover had this small radio receiver installed in his home in order that he could better understand the complaints received by the Commerce Dept. from citizens with …

hoover.blogs.archives.gov

 

[Mark Roberts]

Channel 1 as a virtual designation should be commonly allowed. No technical reason to restrict it.

It has been allowed: it’s currently in use on KAXT-CD, licensed to San Jose, California.

https://fccdata.org/?lang=en&facid=37689&s=20260724140109AS209

Edit: I posted this before I saw other posts noting the same thing. Désolé.

 

[davideduardo]

This led to the big tech corporations of the time, including General Electric, Westinghouse, RCA, AT&T, and other big corporations driving the creation of the broadcasting industry. The private companies invested the money, so the government didn't have to. The only thing the government asked is that the government retain ownership and control of the spectrum, and the companies would be licensees. Herbert Hoover was the father of corporate radio as we know it today.

I don't see the enormous credit you give to the "big tech" companies for the promotion and the development of radio.

For every such tech company-owned station, there are, at least, a handful of early "pioneers" owned by other interests. Start with newspapers, where literally hundreds of early stations were home. Then there were a large bunch of insurance companies, such as the big two signals in Nashville, the best signal in Omaha and many others that used radio as a "classy" brand promotion. Beyond that, you can find local businesses owners like Earle C Anthony who found station ownership profitable and prestigious.

Even look at the two stations in Shenandoah, Iowa, both owned by grain and seed suppliers. Or a station in Port Arthur, TX, owned by a broadcast engineering school.

And then there were the colleges... WHA and all the rest!

 

[TheBigA]

For every such tech company-owned station, there are, at least, a handful of early "pioneers" owned by other interests.

I agree with all the examples you give. Big tech was a part of the networks and the networks fueled a lot of the programming. But mainly it was about big business. That was Hoover and his role in the FRC and pushing the amateurs to their own band.

The colleges you mentioned were a different side of the business, and they ultimately led to NPR and public broadcasting.