“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming on Broadcast, Cable, and Satellite Television
Congressional research reportJan 9, 2008
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting
Local Programming on Broadcast, Cable,
and Satellite Television
-name redactedSpecialist in Telecommunications Policy
January 9, 2008
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL32641
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
Summary
Most broadcast television stations’ viewing areas extend far beyond the borders of their city of
license, and in many cases extend beyond state borders. Under existing FCC rules, which are
intended to foster “localism,” the licensee’s explicit public interest obligation is limited to serving
the needs and interests of viewers within the city of license. Yet, in many cases, the population
residing in the city of license is only a small proportion of the total population receiving the
station’s signal. Hundreds of thousands of television households in New Jersey (outside New
York City and Philadelphia), Delaware (outside Philadelphia), western Connecticut (outside New
York City), New Hampshire (outside Boston), Kansas (outside Kansas City, Missouri), Indiana
(outside Chicago), Illinois (outside St. Louis), and Kentucky (outside Cincinnati) have little or no
access to broadcast television stations with city of license in their own state. The same holds true
for several rural states—including Idaho, Arkansas, and especially Wyoming, where 54.55% of
television households are located in television markets outside the state. Although market forces
often provide broadcasters the incentive to be responsive to their entire serving area, that is not
always the case. This report provides, for each state, detailed county-by-county data on the
percentage of television households located in television markets outside the state and whether
there are any in-state stations serving those households.
The Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs) also often extend beyond state borders. Local
cable operators are required to carry the broadcast signals of television stations located in their
DMA. If they are located in a DMA for which the primary city is in another state, and most or all
of the television stations in that DMA have city of license in the other state, then the broadcast
television signals they must carry will be primarily or entirely from out of state. In some cases,
they may not be allowed to carry signals from within the state but outside the DMA to provide
news or sports programming of special interest in their state because of network non-duplication,
syndicated exclusivity, or sports programming blackout rules or because of private network
affiliation contract agreements, or may be discouraged to do so because these signals do not
qualify for the royalty-free permanent compulsory copyright license for local broadcast signals.
The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 expanded the scope of instate television signals that satellite operators are permitted (and in some cases required) to offer
subscribers. In addition to the signals of those broadcast television stations with city of license
within the DMA in which the subscriber is located (“local-into-local” service), satellite operators
may offer (subject to certain restrictions) signals from outside the DMA if those signals are
“significantly viewed” by those households in the subscriber’s geographic area that only receive
their broadcast signals over-the-air (not via cable or satellite). In addition, satellite operators may
offer certain subscribers located in New Hampshire, Vermont, Mississippi, and Oregon certain instate signals from outside the subscribers’ DMA and must offer subscribers in Alaska and Hawaii
certain in-state signals. This report will be updated as events warrant. To date, four bills on cable
and satellite carriage of local broadcast television station signals have been introduced in the 110th
Congress (S. 124, S. 760, H.R. 602, and H.R. 2821).
Congressional Research Service
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Broadcast Television ...................................................................................................................4
Cable Television .........................................................................................................................8
“Must Carry” Rules...............................................................................................................9
Other Federal Rules and Laws............................................................................................. 10
Flexibility in the Rules ........................................................................................................ 12
The Digital Transition and Local Programming ................................................................... 12
Local Franchise Requirements ............................................................................................ 14
Summary of Factors Affecting Local Programming on Cable .............................................. 14
Satellite Television.................................................................................................................... 16
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 21
Broadcaster Obligations Within the City of License............................................................. 21
Broadcaster Obligations Beyond the City of License ........................................................... 24
Broadcaster Obligations and Multicasting ........................................................................... 24
Increasing the Flexibility of Cable Carriage Rules ............................................................... 25
Increasing the Flexibility of Satellite Local-into-Local Programming .................................. 26
Bills Introduced in the 110th Congress ................................................................................. 27
Figures
Figure 1. Broadcast Television Station City of License and Signal Reach ....................................5
Figure 2. A Cable System Located in a DMA in Which the Primary City is in Another
State....................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3. Satellite Subscriber Whose Local Broadcast Television Stations, as Defined by
the DMA, Are in a Different State .......................................................................................... 17
Figure 4. Broadcast Station Whose City of License Is an Outlying City to a Major City,
but Whose Signal Covers the Major City................................................................................ 22
Tables
Table 1. Television Households in Each State That Are Located in Designated Market
Areas (DMAs) for Which the Primary City is Outside the State............................................. 28
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
Introduction
Many Members of Congress receive complaints from constituents that the news, information, and
even entertainment television programming available to them does not address the needs and
interests of their local community. These constituents question, for example, why they cannot
receive local news programming that focuses on the issues of importance in their locality or state
or the football games of their state university.
Sometimes desired programming cannot be provided because of private contractual network
affiliation agreements between broadcast networks and local broadcast station affiliates. But at
other times desired programming cannot be provided because the geographic boundaries of
broadcast signal contours, audience viewing patterns, and governmental jurisdictions do not
conform with one another; as a result, no methodology for allocating broadcast spectrum or for
constructing rules about which viewers a broadcaster’s programming must serve or which signals
cable and satellite operators must or may carry will meet the needs of all viewers or communities.
For example, millions of U.S. television households are located in the same metropolitan area as a
major city, but across state lines from that city. Some of those households will have a stronger
affinity for programming that focuses on issues relevant to the major city; others will have a
stronger affinity for programming that focuses on relevant state issues. Using either metropolitan
area hubs or state borders as the basis for determining the programming obligations of stations
whose signals reach beyond city borders and state borders will inevitably disappoint some
households. With or without government intervention, it is inevitable that some viewers and some
communities will feel their needs and interests are not being met. At the same time, it may be
possible to make the existing statutes and rules that affect the television programming available to
consumers more flexible in order to foster the provision of television programming that better
meets the needs of local communities. The purpose of this report is to explain how existing
statutes and rules affect the television programming available to consumers and to discuss
potential ways to foster the provision of television programming that better meets the needs of
local communities.
Each broadcast television license is assigned a community of license, in the form of a specific
city. Most broadcast television stations’ viewing areas extend far beyond the borders of their city
of license, and in many cases extend beyond state borders.
The local broadcast television stations that each cable system must carry are determined by the
Nielsen Designated Market Area (DMA) in which the cable system is located. In the 1992 Cable
Act, Congress amended the 1934 Communications Act to require, subject to certain exceptions,
each cable system to carry the signals of all the local full power commercial television stations
“within the same television market as the cable system,” with that market determined by
“commercial publications which delineate television markets based on viewing patterns.”1
1
47 U.S.C. § 534. Each cable system also is required to carry the signals of certain qualified local low-power television
stations (47 U.S.C. § 534) and certain qualified local noncommercial television stations (47 U.S.C. § 535). Low-power
television (LPTV) service was created in 1982 to provide opportunities for locally-oriented television service in small
communities. These communities may be in rural areas or may be individual communities within larger urban areas.
LPTV stations are not considered “full-service” stations and have “secondary spectrum priority” to full-service stations.
This means LPTV stations must not cause interference to the reception of existing or future full-service television
stations, must accept interference from full-service stations, and must yield to new full-service stations, where
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
The DMAs represent the only nationwide commercial mapping of television audience viewing
patterns. Each county in the United States is assigned to a television market based on the viewing
habits of the residents in the county.2 Since viewing patterns are more closely aligned with the
economic markets in which households participate than with state boundaries, some counties are
assigned to DMAs for which the primary city is in a different state. In a DMA that straddles two
states, with the major city and most of the broadcast stations located in one state, the cable
systems in the other state may find that few or none of the broadcast station signals they must
carry are from their own state.
Until Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA)3
in November 2004, a satellite system, when providing local service, could offer a subscriber only
the signals of those local broadcast stations located within the same DMA as the subscriber
(called “local-into-local” service); it was prohibited from offering broadcast signals that might
have originated nearby but outside the subscriber’s DMA. 4 As a result, in many situations, those
subscribers to satellite service who were located in DMAs in which all the broadcast television
stations are in another state (typically because the primary city in the DMA is in another state)
could not be provided the signals of any in-state local broadcast television stations.5 SHVERA
expanded the scope of in-state television signals that satellite operators are permitted (and in
some cases required) to offer subscribers. In addition to the signals of those broadcast television
stations with city of license within the DMA in which the subscriber is located, satellite operators
may offer (subject to certain limitations) signals from outside the DMA if those signals are
“significantly viewed” by those households in the subscriber’s geographic area that only receive
their broadcast signals over-the-air (not via cable or satellite).6 In addition, under SHVERA,
satellite operators may offer certain subscribers located in New Hampshire, Vermont, Mississippi,
(...continued)
interference occurs. LPTV stations are limited to an effective radiated power of 3 kilowatts for stations operating in the
very high frequency (VHF) spectrum band and 150 kilowatts for stations operating in the ultra high frequency (UHF)
spectrum band. See footnote 11 for a brief explanation of the differences between the VHF and UHF spectrum bands.
2
Nielsen Media Research identifies television stations whose broadcast signals reach a specific area and attract the
most viewers. According to Nielsen, “a DMA consists of all counties whose largest viewing share is given to stations
of that same market area. Non-overlapping DMAs cover the entire continental United States, Hawaii, and parts of
Alaska. There are currently 210 DMAs throughout the U.S.” http://www.nielsenmedia.com/FAQ/
dma_satellite%20service.htm, viewed on January 9, 2008. A very small number of counties are divided between two
DMAs, typically because topographical features, such as mountains, split the viewing patterns within the county. In
addition, there are several very sparsely populated portions of Alaska that are not part of any county and not included in
any DMA. Each year Nielsen reassigns a small number of counties to different DMAs, based on shifts in viewing
patterns. For example, in 2003 Nielsen reassigned 24 counties to a different DMA.
3
SHVERA passed as Title IX of the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818, P.L. 108-447).
4
These statutory restrictions appear in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, which is Title I of the Intellectual
Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, included by cross reference in the FY2000 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-113.
5
Under another provision of SHVIA, subscribers who are not able to receive an over the air broadcast signal of
acceptable quality using a conventional, stationary rooftop antenna are eligible to receive distant television signals from
their satellite provider. Under certain circumstances, these distant signals may be from stations located in the same state
as the subscriber. This situation is discussed in greater detail later in this report.
6
The definition of “significantly viewed” signals is discussed in greater detail below in the section on “Cable
Television.” The statutory instructions on how to implement these provisions of SHVERA are discussed in the section
on “Satellite Television.”
Congressional Research Service
2
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
and Oregon certain in-state signals from outside the subscribers’ DMA and must offer subscribers
in Alaska and Hawaii certain in-state signals.7
Table 1, which is appended to this report, presents a compilation of data from Nielsen Media
Research8 and Television & Cable Factbook 20049 on the number and location of U.S. television
households that are located in DMAs for which the primary city is in a different state. It
identifies, for each state:
•
the number of television households in the state;
•
the counties in the state assigned to DMAs for which the primary city is outside
the state;
•
the number of television households in those counties;
•
the percentage of television households in the state that are located in DMAs for
which the primary city is outside the state; and
•
the full power broadcast television stations with city of license or transmitting
location inside the state that are located in DMAs for which the primary city is
outside the state.
These data provide the empirical basis for the discussion in this report. The information on city of
license in Table 1 is very important. It shows whether television households in counties assigned
to DMAs for which the primary city is outside the state nonetheless have in-state, in-DMA
television stations available to them. 10 For example, it shows that the approximately 55,000
Arkansas television households that are located in the Springfield, Missouri DMA receive service
from two UHF analog11 stations in their DMA that have city of license in Arkansas and that
therefore have the obligation to meet the needs and interests of Arkansas viewers. But
approximately 77,000 Arkansas households that are located in the Memphis, Tennessee DMA
have access to no broadcast television stations that have city of license in Arkansas (and thus have
no access to broadcast television stations that have an obligation to serve the needs and interests
of those Arkansas households). What Table 1 does not provide is information about whether and
how well the needs and interests of these television households are being met by broadcast
television stations with city of license in the other state (for example, how well the broadcast
7
These state-specific exceptions are discussed in greater detail below in the section on “Satellite Television.”
Nielsen Media Research, U.S. Television Household Estimates, September 2003, which presents data on the number
of television households in each county and the DMA to which each county is assigned.
9
Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2004, which presents data on the city of license and
DMA of each commercial broadcast television station and the transmitting location of each noncommercial broadcast
television station.
10
The Television & Cable Factbook 2004 was published in April 2004 and thus does not include stations that have
begun operation in 2004. As explained later in this report, the industry currently is in the midst of a congressionallymandated transition from the analog transmission of broadcast signals to digital transmission. While most licensees had
already begun transmitting digital as well as analog signals prior to 2004, many licensees began dual transmission in
2004 and those new digital transmissions are not reflected in the data (and hence not reflected in Table 1).
11
Analog broadcast television service is provided over two portions of the radio spectrum—the very high frequency
(VHF) portion and the ultra high frequency (UHF) portion. The transmission characteristics of the spectrum is such that
VHF signals transmit further and require less power and therefore VHF stations tend to have a larger reach, with better
reception quality and lower costs. These differences disappear when the signals are received via cable or satellite
service rather than over the air.
8
Congressional Research Service
3
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
stations with city of license in Memphis, Tennessee are serving the needs and interests of those
77,000 television households in Arkansas).
Broadcast Television
Localism has long been one of the three primary objectives of U.S. broadcast
policy.12Broadcasters are considered to be temporary trustees of the public’s spectrum because the
1934 Communications Act instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) to award licenses to use the airwaves expressly on the condition that licensees serve
the public interest;13 section 309(a) requires the Commission to determine, in the case of
applications for licenses, “whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served
by granting such application.”14 As trustees of the public airwaves, broadcasters must serve the
public interest by airing programming that is responsive to the interests and needs of their
community of license. The concept of localism derives from Title III of the Communications Act;
section 307(b) of the act explicitly requires the Commission to “make such distribution of
licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the several States and communities
as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same.”15
In carrying out the mandate of Section 307(b), when the Commission allocates channels for a new
broadcast service, its first priority is to provide general service to an area, but its next priority is
for facilities to provide the first local service to a community. 16 The Commission has long
recognized that “every community of appreciable size has a presumptive need for its own
transmission service.”17 The Supreme Court has stated that “[f]airness to communities [in
distributing radio service] is furthered by a recognition of local needs for a community radio
mouthpiece.”18
Once awarded a license, a broadcast station must place a specified signal contour over its
community of license to ensure that local residents receive service. 19 A station must maintain its
main studio in or near its community of license to facilitate interaction between the station and
the members of the local community it is licensed to serve.20 In addition, a station “must equip the
main studio with production and transmission facilities that meet the applicable standards,
12
The other two are diversity of voices and competition.
13
The source for this discussion of broadcasters’ public interest obligations is the introduction to the FCC’s Notice of
Inquiry, In the Matter of Broadcast Localism, MB Docket No. 04-233, adopted June 7, 2004 and released July 1, 2004,
¶¶ 1-5. To date, the FCC has not adopted any rules or taken any action in this proceeding.
14
47 U.S.C. § 309(a). This concept of public trusteeship was reiterated by the Commission in Advanced Television
Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, 12 FCC Rcd 12829 (1977), in which it noted
that even as they transition to digital technology, “broadcasters will remain trustees of the public’s airwaves.”
15
47 U.S.C. § 307(b).
16
See Amendment of Section 3.606 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations, 41 F.C.C. 148, 167 (1952). The
Commission’s first television allocation priority is to “provide at least one television station to all parts of the United
States”; its second is to “provide each community with at least one television broadcast station.”
17
Pacific Broadcasting of Missouri LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 2291 (2003) (quoting Public Service Broadcasting of West
Jordan, Inc., 97 F.C.C. 2d 960, 962 (Rev. Bd. 1984)).
18
FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358, 362 (1955).
19
47 C.F.R. § 73.685(a).
20
47 C.F.R. § 73.1125.
Congressional Research Service
4
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
maintain continuous program transmission capability, and maintain a meaningful management
and staff presence.”21 The main studio also must house a public inspection file, the contents of
which must include “a list of programs that provided the station’s most significant treatment of
community issues during the preceding three month period.”22
In practice, full power broadcast television signal contours almost always extend far beyond the
borders of the community (city) of license. For a full power television station, the geographic
boundaries of its city of license are narrower than the geographic area that can receive the signals
of the station. As shown in Figure 1, the Grade B contour for a hypothetical full power broadcast
television station licensed to serve major city M, in state X, extends far beyond the borders of that
city, and even into state Y.23
Figure 1. Broadcast Television Station City of License
and Signal Reach
Source: CRS.
21
Amendment of Sections 73.1125 and 73.1130 of the Commission’s Rules, the Main Studio and Program Origination
Rules for Radio and Television Broadcast Stations, 3 FCC Rcd 5024, 5026 ¶ 24 (1988).
22
47 C.F.R. § 73.352(e)(11)(i). These lists must be retained until final action has been taken on the station’s renewal
application.
23
The Grade A contour around a station’s transmitter identities the geographic area in which satisfactory service is
expected at least 90% of the time for at least 70% of the receiving locations. The Grade B contour identifies the
geographic area in which the quality of picture is expected to be satisfactory to the median observer at least 90% of the
time for at least 50% of the receiving locations within the contours, in the absence of interfering co-channel and
adjacent-channel signals. (See Warren Communications News, Televison & Cable Factbook 2004, volume 72, at p. A14.)
Congressional Research Service
5
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
Under existing FCC rules, the licensee’s explicit public interest obligation is limited to serving
the needs of viewers within its city of license. 24 Over the years, the Commission has interpreted
its rules to carry a secondary obligation for the licensee to serve the needs of viewers outside the
city of license but within the signal reach.25 But the FCC rules do not provide specific guidance
about this secondary obligation. Yet, in many cases, the population residing within the city of
license is only a small proportion of the total population receiving the station’s signal.
Many broadcast television stations have viewing areas that cross state borders. This is not
surprising as cities often are located along rivers or other natural boundaries that act as state
borders, but urban development often occurs on both sides of the border and a station’s viewing
radius around a central city will extend into suburbs and even into other cities across state
borders. In many of these situations, the FCC has attempted to serve populations on both sides of
the state borders by assigning some licenses to cities in each state. For example, in the Paducah,
Kentucky-Cape Girardeau, Missouri-Mount Vernon, Illinois area, an NBC-affiliated VHF analog
and digital station and a UHF analog and digital station have city of license in Paducah,
Kentucky, a Fox-affiliated UHF analog and digital station and the CBS-affiliated VHF analog and
digital station have city of license in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, an ABC-affiliated VHF analog
and digital station has city of license in Harrisburg, Illinois, and a VHF analog station has city of
license in Mount Vernon, Illinois.
But some metropolitan areas are dominated by a single large city, with most of the television
licenses (including those for all the stations affiliated with the four major broadcast networks)
assigned to that city and the licenses for only a few stations assigned to cities in the neighboring
state(s). For example, the licenses for the preponderance of stations serving the metropolitan New
York City and Philadelphia areas are assigned to those cities, with very few licenses assigned to
New Jersey, western Connecticut, or Delaware. The FCC has taken special notice of this situation
with respect to the state of New Jersey by explicitly stating that all the New York and
Philadelphia stations have the responsibility to serve the needs of their New Jersey viewers. 26
24
See Notice of Inquiry, In the Matter of Broadcast Localism, MB Docket No. 04-233, adopted June 7, 2004 and
released July 1, 2004, at ¶ 3 and footnote 11.
25
For example, in Re Application of WHYY, Inc., for Renewal of License for Noncommercial Educational Television
Station WHYY-TV, Wilmington Delaware, the Commission stated “Although the petitioners emphasize the station’s
primary obligation to serve the needs of Wilmington, its city of license, WHYY-TV owes a secondary duty to serve
other nearby areas, which include Philadelphia and Camden and Trenton, New Jersey, as we have previously
recognized. 18 RR 2d 1603 (1970).” 53 F.C.C. 2d 421 (para. 9). In a subsequent decision involving the same station,
the Commission expanded on this: “Although WHYY believes that it is a television station licensed to serve
Wilmington and ‘[a]lmost equally important ... adjacent metropolitan areas of Philadelphia and Camden,’ the licensee’s
first and primary obligation is to serve the local needs and interests of community of license—Wilmington. This
primary obligation to Wilmington, contrary to WHYY’s assertions, has been emphasized by the Commission for at
least the last twenty-three years.... While regional programs can address the interests of Wilmington residents, such
programs cannot serve other service area residents to the detriment of the citizens of Wilmington. The licensee’s prime
and most important focus must be on the problems, needs, and interests of its community of license. However, as we
outlined in our 1975 decision to renew the license of WHYY, 53 FCC 2d 421 (1975), while the station’s primary
obligation is to serve the needs of its city of license, WHYY also has a s22 secondary duty to serve other nearby areas
including Philadelphia, Camden, and Trenton, New Jersey.” 93 F.C.C. 2d 1096 (para. 20) (1983), emphasis in original.
26
In an order reallocating channel 9 from New York City to Secaucus, New Jersey, (Channel 9 Reallocation (WORTV), 53 RR 2d 469 (1983)), the Commission stated: “It is expected that the licensee will devote itself to meeting the
special needs of its new community (and the needs of the northern New Jersey area in general).... In the usual case,
Secaucus, the city of assignment, would be the primary focus of the licensee’s programming responsibilities. However,
we have previously determined that the lack of local VHF television service to this highly populated area of northern
New Jersey presented a unique set of circumstances (see, e.g., Docket No. 20350, 2nd R&O, 59 FCC 2d 1386 [37 RR
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
As a result of television viewing areas extending beyond state borders, and the frequency of
populations being concentrated along both sides of those borders, there are a number of situations
in which, despite the efforts of the FCC, a significant proportion of the television households in a
state are served primarily or entirely by broadcast television stations whose city of license—and
hence primary service obligation—lies outside that state. 27
There are 3,149,060 television households in New Jersey, but the vast majority of these
households receive all or most of their over-the-air signals from stations licensed to New York
City or Philadelphia. Only one television station with a city of license in New Jersey is affiliated
with one of the major television networks, and that UHF analog NBC-affiliate serves the
relatively sparsely populated southern tip of the state. Of the other eight commercial stations with
city of license in New Jersey, only one is a VHF station and five are affiliated with Spanish
language networks. Four of the New Jersey stations transmit from locations in New York City and
their signals fully cover that city. 28 As indicated earlier, at least at the policy level, the
Commission has attempted to address the potential lack of coverage of New Jersey-specific issues
by explicitly requiring the stations licensed to New York City and Philadelphia to offer
programming that serves the New Jersey households within their viewing areas.
There are 313,630 television households in Delaware, but there is only one UHF analog
commercial station with city of license in the state, plus three UHF noncommercial stations. The
bulk of the Delaware population is served by television stations in Philadelphia; those stations
have primary obligations to serve the viewers of Philadelphia and suburban New Jersey. The
remainder of the Delaware viewers are served by stations in Salisbury, Maryland. Similarly, the
only major network with an affiliate in New Hampshire is ABC. The vast majority of New
Hampshire’s 498,150 television households receive broadcast service primarily from stations in
Boston.
This pattern exists around many large cities. More than 900,000 television households in
Maryland are in the Washington, DC DMA. Although a small portion of these households are
served by a UHF analog and digital ABC-affiliated station and a UHF analog independent station,
both with city of license in Hagerstown, Maryland, and a UHF analog noncommercial station
with city of license in Frederick, Maryland, most are primarily served by Washington, DC
stations. The Baltimore stations provide a potential source of programming that addresses
Maryland-specific issues, but although most of these households fall within those stations’ Grade
B contours, most households subscribe to cable or satellite service and therefore few of them have
the antennas needed to bring in the Baltimore stations.29 While Washington, DC stations do
(...continued)
2d 1275] (1976)), wherein special service obligations have been imposed on all New York City and Philadelphia TV
stations. Accordingly, we expect RKO to perform a higher degree of service to its Grade B coverage area than is
normally required of a broadcast licensee. At renewal time RKO will be judged by how it met the obligation to serve
the greater service needs of northern New Jersey, which we view as broader than the specific needs of Secaucus.”
27
The data underlying the following discussion are found in Table 1.
28
Interestingly, four stations were listed under New York State in the Television & Cable Factbook 2004, a data source
widely used in the industry, despite having city of license in New Jersey. In the 2005 edition, three of those stations
were listed under New York State. In the 2006 edition, all four of the stations were listed under New Jersey.
29
Today, upwards of 85% of all U.S. television households receive their broadcast signals by a means other than over
the air reception. According to data presented by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association on its
website (http://www.ncta.com, Statistics, viewed on January 9, 2008), in September 2007 there were 112.3 million U.S.
television households, of which 65.1 million subscribed to cable television and 32.0 million subscribed to satellite
television or some other noncable multichannel video program service. (Adding these two figures together would create
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
address issues of interest to Maryland suburbanites, they have the burden of addressing the needs
of three jurisdictions, with primary obligations to serve DC. In Virginia, as well, more than
900,000 television households are in the Washington, DC DMA, and are served primarily by
Washington, DC stations, with only a UHF analog and digital independent station, a UHF analog
Telefutura-affiliated station, a UHF analog and digital noncommercial station, and two UHF
analog noncommercial stations located in that portion of Virginia.
More than 300,000 Kansas television households are in the Kansas City, Missouri DMA and rely
almost entirely on broadcast stations from that city. The only station in that DMA with city of
license in Kansas is a UHF analog and digital station in Lawrence, Kansas. The Kansas City
stations do not have explicit obligations to meet the needs of their Kansas viewers. Similarly,
more than 330,000—or just under 35%—of the television households in Connecticut are in the
New York City DMA and primarily served by New York City stations; more than 150,000
Kentucky television households are in the Cincinnati, Ohio DMA and there are no commercial
stations in that DMA with city of license in Kentucky; almost 200,000 television households in
northwestern Indiana are in the Chicago, Illinois DMA, served primarily by Chicago stations,
with only one UHF analog and digital commercial station and one UHF analog noncommercial
station located in that part of Indiana; and more than 300,000 television households in western
Illinois are in the St. Louis, Missouri DMA, served primarily by St. Louis stations, with only one
UHF analog and digital commercial station with city of license in Illinois.
This problem is not limited to major metropolitan areas. As shown in Table 1, 54.55% of the
television households in Wyoming are located in television markets outside the state. The
population centers around Casper and Cheyenne are served by broadcast stations with city of
license in Wyoming, but most other parts of the state are served primarily or entirely by broadcast
stations with city of license outside the state. Almost one-fourth of Idaho’s television households
are in DMAs whose principal city is outside the state and more than one-fifth of Arkansas’
television households are in DMAs whose principal city is outside the state.
Cable Television
As early as the 1960s, when households began receiving their broadcast signals over cable
television rather than over the air, Congress became concerned both that local broadcasters could
be harmed (either because they were not compensated for their programming or because local
cable systems chose not to carry their programming, thus cutting off their access to a large
segment of the viewing audience) and that there could be a diminution of programming that
serves local needs and interests. Congress therefore enacted several laws intended to extend the
policy goal of localism to the cable television industry, including the 1972, 1984, and 1992 Cable
Acts.
(...continued)
a slight amount of double counting of non-broadcast households as a small portion of these households subscribed to
both cable and a noncable service). The statutory, regulatory, and private contractual restrictions on cable and satellite
systems carrying the signals of broadcast stations located in-state, but outside-the-DMA are discussed in the cable and
satellite sections of this report.
Congressional Research Service
8
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
“Must Carry” Rules
Most notable was the adoption of the “retransmission consent/must carry” election in the 1992
Cable Act. Every three years, each local commercial broadcast television station must choose
between:
•
negotiating retransmission consent agreements with the cable systems operating
in its service area, whereby if agreement is reached the broadcaster is
compensated by the cable system for the right to carry the broadcast signal, and if
agreement is not reached, the cable system is not allowed to carry the signal; or
•
requiring each cable system operating in its service area to carry its signal, but
receiving no compensation for such carriage.
With this mandatory election, broadcasters with popular programming that are confident the local
cable systems will want to carry that programming can make the retransmission consent election
and be assured compensation for such carriage, and broadcasters with less popular programming
that the local cable systems might otherwise not choose to carry can make the must carry election
and be assured that their signal will be carried by all local cable systems.
The evolution of the must carry rules demonstrates the difficulty of constructing rules that
safeguard local broadcasters and foster local programming without unduly burdening cable
operators or undermining the exclusive distribution contracts between program content providers
and program distributors. The initial rules required cable operators to carry all broadcast
television signals whose Grade B signals reached into the cable service area. But this proved too
expansive; for example, the Grade B contours of Washington, DC stations extend over Baltimore,
and vice versa. The must carry requirements were then scaled back to those signals from stations
located within certain mileage limits (for example, within 35 miles). There then was some
concern that this would harm broadcast stations that did not meet these mileage limits but had
historically been viewed by audiences beyond those mileage limits. The must carry rules were
modified to apply to all broadcast stations that were “significantly viewed” by those households
in the cable service area that did not receive service from cable or satellite providers.30 The
specific threshold viewing levels were, for a network-affiliate station, a market share of at least
3% of total weekly viewing hours in the market and a net weekly circulation of 25%; for
independent stations, 2% of total weekly viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of 5%. The
share of viewing hours referred to the total hours that households that do not receive television
signals from multichannel video program distributors (“MVPDs”)31 viewed the subject station
during the week, expressed as a percentage of the total hours these households viewed all stations
during the week. Net weekly circulation referred to the number of households that do not receive
television signals from multichannel video programming distributors that viewed the station for
five minutes or more during the entire week, expressed as a percentage of the total households
30
Cable Television Report and Order, adopted on 2/2/72, 36 FCC 2nd 143 (1972).
31
MVPDs provide packages of video programming to subscribers for a monthly fee. The overwhelming majority of
television households that receive their programming from MVPDs subscribe to cable or direct broadcast satellite
systems, but a small number of households get low-power “C-band” home satellite dish (HSD) service, wireless cable
service such as multichannel multipoint distribution service (MMDS), or service provided by municipal or private
overbuilding broadband service providers (BSP) or by private cable operators. See Federal Communications
Commission, Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,
Twelfth Annual Report, adopted February 10, 2006, released March 3, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
9
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
that do not receive television signals from multichannel video programming distributors in the
survey area.
But as more and more households subscribed to cable service, it became less reasonable to base
must carry decisions on the behavior of the minority of households that continued to get their
service over the air. In the 1992 Cable Act, Congress modified sections 614 and 615 of the 1934
Communications Act32 to base the must carry rules on a definition of local television markets
explicitly based on viewing patterns, requiring each cable operator to carry the signals of local
commercial television stations, qualified low-power stations, and qualified noncommercial
educational stations, if the licensees of those stations chose to have their signals carried.33 This
statutory language remains in place today.
The exact number of broadcast signals that cable systems must carry varies with the size of the
cable system, but includes at a minimum three local commercial stations and one local
noncommercial educational station. Cable systems with more than 12 channels must carry local
commercial broadcast stations on up to one-third of their channels and up to three qualified
noncommercial educational stations.
“Local” commercial stations are defined as all stations whose community of license is within the
same television market as the cable system. 34 Following the statutory directive to use television
markets delineated by commercial publications, the FCC implemented a rule defining television
markets according to the Nielsen DMAs.35
Other Federal Rules and Laws
Cable systems must carry the entirety of the program schedule of every local television station
carried pursuant to the mandatory carriage provisions (or the retransmission consent provisions)
of the 1992 Cable Act, subject to the carriage restrictions in the network program non-duplication
rules, 36 syndicated exclusivity protection rules, 37 and sports programming blackout rules.38 In
32
Codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 534 and 535.
As explained above, each broadcast television station can choose, once every three years, between two options: (1)
negotiating a retransmission consent agreement with each local cable operator to make its programming available in
exchange for compensation or (2) requiring the local cable operator to carry its programming at no charge to the cable
operator.
34
A noncommercial educational station that places a Grade B signal over a cable system’s principal headend, or whose
city of license is within fifty miles of the cable system’s principal headend, is considered “local” for this purpose.
35
FCC Fact Sheet, “Cable Television,” section entitled “Signal Carriage Requirements,” dated June 2000, available at
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html, viewed on January 9, 2008. Television markets originally were defined
according to Arbitron market definitions, but when Arbitron discontinued performing this service, the FCC chose to use
the Nielsen DMAs.
36
Commercial television station licensees are entitled to protect the network programming they have contracted for by
exercising non-duplication rights against more distant television broadcast stations carried on a local cable television
system that serves more than 1,000 subscribers. Commercial broadcast stations may assert these non-duplication rights
regardless of whether or not their signals are being transmitted by the local cable system and regardless of when, or if,
the network programming is scheduled to be broadcast. Generally, the zone of protection for such programming cannot
exceed 35 miles for stations licensed to a community in the Commission’s list of top 100 television markets or 55 miles
for stations licensed to communities in smaller television markets. In addition, a cable operator does not have to delete
the network programming of any station which the Commission has previously recognized as significantly viewed in
the cable community.
37
With respect to non-network programming, cable systems that serve at least 1,000 subscribers may be required, upon
(continued...)
33
Congressional Research Service
10
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
practice, these rules are quite complex and result in significant amounts of programming from
television stations within a cable operator’s DMA not being carried because such carriage would
be duplicative or would contravene exclusivity agreements.
Interestingly, while the must carry rules are now based on DMAs, the non-duplication rules
continue to be based on the old “significantly viewed” criteria. Consider a cable operator that
sought to carry the broadcast signals of a network-affiliated station that is located nearby, but
outside the DMA in which the cable system is located, and that successfully worked out a
retransmission consent agreement with that affiliated station. For example, assume a Montgomery
County, Maryland, cable operator, which is located in the Washington, DC DMA, sought to carry
a Baltimore broadcast station, and successfully worked out a retransmission consent agreement
with the Baltimore station. Then, if that Baltimore station met the “significantly viewed” criteria
in the cable operator’s location, its signals would not be subject to the non-duplication rules and
the signals from both the Washington, DC network affiliate and the Baltimore network affiliate
could be carried by the Montgomery County cable operator in their entirety, without blackouts of
the network programming on the Baltimore station. Some industry observers claim, however, that
such duplication does not occur very often because the national networks, rather than the
affiliated stations, tend to make the determination (through language in the private contractual
agreement between the network and each affiliate) about whether a station located outside a cable
system’s DMA should grant the cable system retransmission consent—and frequently these
contracts effectively preclude retransmission consent.
Copyright law also may tend to discourage cable systems from carrying the signals of broadcast
stations located outside the DMA in which the cable system is located.39 Cable systems are
required to pay royalties under a congressionally granted compulsory copyright license for the
“secondary transmission” of the signals of broadcasters located outside the DMA within which
the cable system is located. In contrast, cable systems enjoy a royalty-free permanent compulsory
copyright license—that is, do not have to pay copyright fees—for the secondary transmission of
broadcast signals of stations located in their DMAs. The royalty-free license extends to the
secondary transmission of signals of out-of-DMA broadcast stations that meet the “significantly
viewed” criteria discussed above. However, if an in-state, but out-of-DMA station does not meet
(...continued)
proper notification, to provide syndicated protection to broadcasters who have contracted with program suppliers for
exclusive exhibition rights to certain programs within specific geographic areas, whether or not the cable system
affected is carrying the station requesting this protection. However, no cable system is required to delete a program
broadcast by a station that either is significantly viewed or places a Grade B or better contour over the community of
the cable system.
38
A cable system located within 35 miles of the city of license of a broadcast station where a sporting event is taking
place may not carry the live television broadcast of the sporting event on its system if the event is not available live on
a local television broadcast station, if the holder of the broadcast rights to the event, or its agent, requests such a
blackout. The holder of the rights is responsible for notifying the cable operator of its request for program deletion at
least the Monday preceding the calendar week during which the deletion is desired. If no television broadcast station is
licensed to the community in which the sports event is taking place, the 35-mile blackout zone extends from the
broadcast station’s licensed community with which the sports event or team is identified. If the event or local team is
not identified with any particular community (for instance, the New England Patriots), the 35-mile blackout zone
extends from the community nearest the sports event which has a licensed broadcast station. The sports blackout rule
does not apply to cable television systems serving less than 1,000 subscribers, nor does it require deletion of a sports
event on a broadcast station’s signal that was carried by a cable system prior to March 31, 1972. The rule does not
apply to sports programming carried on non-broadcast program distribution services such as ESPN. These services,
however, may be subject to private contractual blackout restrictions.
39
17 U.S.C. § 111.
Congressional Research Service
11
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
the “significantly viewed” criteria, the requirement to pay the copyright royalties might tip the
balance away from the cable system carrying the station’s signals.
Flexibility in the Rules
The 1992 Cable Act includes explicit language authorizing the FCC to implement the must carry
rules flexibly in order to foster the goal of localism. The language in Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the
act (Carriage of Local Commercial Signals)40 explicitly allows for exceptions, requiring the
carriage of “local commercial television stations,” but providing flexibility on how those local
stations would be determined:
(i) For purposes of this section, a broadcasting station’s market shall be determined by the
Commission by regulation or order using, where available, commercial publications which
delineate television markets based on viewing patterns, except that, following a written
request, the Commission may, with respect to a particular television broadcast station,
include additional communities within its television market or exclude communities from
such station’s television market to better effectuate the purpose of this section. In considering
such requests, the Commission may determine that particular communities are part of more
than one television market.
(ii) In considering requests filed pursuant to clause (i), the Commission shall afford
particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account such factors as—
(I) whether the station, or other stations located in the same area, have been historically
carried on the cable system or systems within such community;
(II) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such
community;
(III) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system
in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news
coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of
sporting and other events of interest to the community; and
(IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households within the areas
served by the cable system or systems in such community.
In a 2001 decision involving the attorney general of the state of Connecticut, the Commission
found that only a broadcaster or a cable system has the standing to file a request to modify the
signal carriage right of a broadcast station.41
The Digital Transition and Local Programming
The television industry is in the midst of another policy debate involving cable carriage of local
broadcast signals during (and after) the congressionally mandated transition from analog
transmission of broadcast signals to digital transmission.42 During the transition, television
40
Codified at 47 U.S.C. § 534.
16 FCC Rcd 16099 (2001).
42
For a full discussion of this transition, see CRS Report RL31260, Digital Television: An Overview, by Lennard G.
(continued...)
41
Congressional Research Service
12
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
broadcasters have been given additional spectrum to allow them to broadcast using digital
technology while retaining the spectrum they use for analog broadcasting. The Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) set the digital transition deadline at February 17, 2009, by which date
the broadcasters will be required to return the spectrum used for analog transmission. During this
transition, many broadcasters are providing both analog and digital broadcast signals. Therefore
there has been a public policy debate over which broadcast signals cable systems should be
obligated to carry. In January 2001, the FCC announced adoption of rules for cable carriage of
digital television signals. The FCC ruling does not require cable systems to simultaneously carry
both the analog and digital signals (“dual carriage”) of local television stations. The FCC
tentatively concluded that “such a requirement appears to burden cable operators’ First
Amendment interests more than is necessary to further a substantial governmental interest.”
While not approving a dual carriage mandate, the FCC did rule that a digital-only television
station, whether commercial or noncommercial, can immediately assert its right to carriage on a
local cable system. In addition, a television station that returns its analog spectrum and converts
to digital operations must be carried by local cable systems.
In April 2007, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to address another issue: how to
protect those households that subscribe to cable systems that have not fully deployed digital
technology by the February 17, 2009, deadline for broadcasters to discontinue analog
transmission.43 The Commission addressed the statutory requirement that cable operators must
make the signal transmitted by a broadcaster electing mandatory carriage viewable by all of their
subscribers,44 seeking comment on how cable operators can implement this requirement after the
end of analog broadcasting. The Commission proposed that cable operators must comply with
this “viewability” provision and ensure that cable subscribers with analog television sets are able
to continue to view all must-carry stations after the end of the digital television transition by
either (1) carrying the digital signal in analog format, or (2) carrying the signal only in digital
format, provided that all subscribers have the necessary equipment to view the broadcast content.
Although all the commissioners agreed that this was an important issue that the Commission
should address, two of the commissioners raised several questions: whether it was premature to
propose specific prescriptive rules in light of potentially strong market forces that could resolve
any problem, whether all the constitutional issues had been fully vetted, whether it was premature
to propose reversal of existing decisions without having had a chance to get public comment.45
On September 11, 2007, the FCC adopted final rules46 intended to ensure that cable customers
continue to receive local television stations after the transition. Specifically, the FCC will require
cable operators to comply with a “viewability requirement” by choosing to either (1) carry the
“must carry” signal in analog as well as digital formats (dual carriage), or (2) carry the “must
carry” signal in a digital-only format, provided that all subscribers have set-top boxes that will
(...continued)
Kruger.
43
In the Matter of Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendments to Part 76 of the Commission’s
Rules, CS Docket No. 98-120, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted April 25, 2007 and released
May 4, 2007.
44
47 U.S.C. § 534(b)(7).
45
See the Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein and the Statement of Commissioner Robert M. McDowell,
re: Cable Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals (CS Docket No. 98-120), April 25, 2007.
46
In the Matter of Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendments to Part 76 of the Commission’s
Rules, CS Docket No. 98-120, Third Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted
September 11, 2007 and released November 30, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
13
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
enable them to view digital broadcasts on their analog televisions. The viewability requirement
extends to February 2012, at which time the FCC will reassess the need for the requirement.
Small cable companies—which had sought an exemption—may request a waiver of the
viewability requirement.
Cable systems must carry “primary video,” defined as a “single programming stream and other
program-related content.” With digital technology, broadcasters can divide their 6 MHz of
spectrum into separate and discrete streams of content and broadcast multiple (as many as six)
channels of programming. This is known as “multicasting.” Broadcasters sought an FCC ruling
requiring cable operators to carry any and all multicasted channels transmitted by commercial
broadcasters, arguing that the incentive to develop additional programming streams is diminished
if they have no guarantee that cable systems will carry that programming. Cable providers
countered that their decision on whether or not to carry additional broadcaster programming
streams should be dictated by the market, not mandated. In February 2005, the FCC affirmed its
prior decision that cable operators are not required to carry more than a single digital
programming stream from any particular broadcaster.47
Local Franchise Requirements
Under the 1984 Cable Act, local franchising authorities may require cable operators to set aside
channels for public, educational, or governmental (PEG) use.48 In addition, franchising authorities
may require cable operators to provide services, facilities, and equipment for the use of these
channels. Many cable systems include several PEG channels. In general, cable operators are not
permitted to control the content of programming on PEG channels. Cable operators may impose
non-content-based requirements, such as minimum production standards, and may mandate
equipment user training. In addition, cable systems may make available “access channels” that
typically provide community-oriented programming, such as local news, public announcements
and government meetings. They are usually programmed by individuals or groups, on either
public, educational or governmental access channels or on commercial leased access channels.
Summary of Factors Affecting Local Programming on Cable
The bottom line of the existing rules is as follows. Unless they have systems with very small
capacity, local cable operators are required to carry the broadcast signals of all the full-power
television stations (and certain qualified low-power television stations) located in their DMA and
noncommercial stations that transmit from within 50 miles of the cable head-end whose grade B
contours cover the cable system’s service area. The cable operator is required to carry the entirety
of the program schedule of each of these broadcast stations (subject to possible blackouts to
conform with the non-duplication rules for those circumstances where more the broadcast
programming is duplicated by a second or third station in the DMA).
If a cable system is located in a DMA in which the primary city is in another state, and most or all
of the television stations in that DMA have city of license in the other state, then the broadcast
47
In the Matter of Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendments to Part 76 of the Commission’s
Rules, CS Docket No. 98-120, Second Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, adopted February 10,
2005, released February 23, 2005, at ¶ 33.
48
P.L. 98-549, 47 U.S.C. 531 (Section 611 of the Communications Act).
Congressional Research Service
14
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
television signals it must carry will be primarily or entirely from out of state. This scenario is
shown in Figure 2. Although local cable operator Q’s franchise is located in state Y, and the
major nearby city, M, is located in state X, both are within the same DMA, F. If local cable
operator Q wants to carry the signals of broadcasters that are located in state Y but outside of
DMA F, it can negotiate with those broadcasters to carry their signals, but any carriage would be
subject to the restrictions in the network program non-duplication, syndicated programming
exclusivity protection, and sports programming blackout rules, and to copyright fees (though
these rules and fees will not be in effect if the “significantly viewed” criteria can be met). All
these factors may restrict the state-specific entertainment programming cable operator Q can
carry and also could affect the local news programming carried. Cable operator Q is not likely to
use one of its channels to offer a “Swiss cheese” program schedule with holes in it for blacked out
programs or programs for which it does not choose to pay copyright fees. Nor is it likely to set
aside a channel just for several hours a day of state news or one or two sports events per week.
Figure 2. A Cable System
Located in a DMA in Which the Primary City is in Another State
Source: CRS.
Some observers claim, however, that when cable operators do not carry the in-state programming
of out-of-DMA broadcast signals, it is unlikely to be because of these rules, which frequently can
be sidestepped through application of the exceptions for “significantly viewed” stations. Rather,
these observers claim, it is likely to be because the in-state broadcasters are constrained by
territorial exclusivity provisions in their network affiliation agreements, allegedly imposed by the
broadcast networks.
Whatever the cause of cable system reluctance to carry the signals of in-state, but outside-theDMA broadcast signals, it is likely that the within-DMA, but out-of-state broadcasters (for
Congressional Research Service
15
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
example, the broadcasters with city of license M) will cover some issues of interest to the cable
operator’s subscribers (the subscribers to cable system Q). Their inclusion in the same DMA is
based on the assumption that viewers in the county in which the cable system operates tend to
view the signals from that DMA and are likely to have a marketplace connection that broadcasters
will have an incentive to foster. But the coverage of issues specific to the viewers in that cable
system’s service area may be quite limited since the broadcasters are not subject to any explicit
obligation to serve the needs of viewers outside their city of license and their close-in viewers are
likely to be considered more valuable by advertisers.
Whether or not this represents a problem to the cable system’s subscribers will depend on their
relative affinity toward news, information, and sports programming focused on the television
market in which they are located, as defined by the DMA, vs. news, information, and sports
programming focused on the political jurisdiction (state) in which they reside. For example, a
cable subscriber in Montgomery County, Maryland, might have a preference for programming
from Washington, DC stations that presents detailed traffic information on commuter routes
between the subscriber’s home and downtown Washington or, alternatively, might have a
preference for programming from Baltimore, Maryland stations that presents more in-depth
reporting of Maryland state politics. The current rules assume the preference is for the former
because it is based on the statutory requirement that must carry requirements mirror existing
viewing patterns.
Satellite Television
Until Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) of 1999,49 satellite
television providers were not allowed to provide local broadcast television signals to their
subscribers. SHVIA sought to promote competition between cable television and direct broadcast
satellite, and to increase local program choices available to television households, by allowing
satellite companies to provide local broadcast television signals to all subscribers who reside in
the local television station’s market. Local markets are explicitly defined in the statute as the
Nielsen DMAs. This ability of satellite companies to provide local broadcast channels is
commonly referred to as “local-into-local” service. Satellite companies are not required to offer
local-into-local service, and they can charge for the service. Under copyright law, satellite
companies enjoy a royalty-free permanent compulsory copyright license—exempting them from
paying copyright royalties—for the secondary transmission of the broadcast signals of stations
provided to subscribers as part of local-into-local service (the signals of broadcast stations located
in the DMA of the subscriber).50 But if a satellite system chooses to provide local-into-local
service in any DMA, it must provide subscribers in that DMA with all of the local broadcast
television signals that are assigned to the DMA that ask to be carried on that satellite system. A
satellite system is not required to carry more than one local broadcast television station that is
49
SHVIA is Title I of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, included by cross
reference in the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-113. For more information on SHVIA and related
issues, see CRS Report RS21768, Satellite Television: Reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act
(SHVIA)—Background and Key Issues, by (name redacted), and CRS Report RS20425, Satellite Television: Historical
Information on SHVIA and LOCAL, by (name redacted).
50
17 U.S.C. 122.
Congressional Research Service
16
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
affiliated with a particular television network unless the stations are licensed to communities in
different states.51
Under SHVIA, local-into-local service was explicitly restricted by law to the provision of the
signals of broadcast television stations with city of license within the DMA in which the customer
is located. Satellite operators did not have the opportunity that cable operators have to negotiate
carriage of the programming of broadcasters that are in-state, but outside the viewer’s DMA,
unless the satellite operator’s customers were unable to receive over-the-air broadcast signals of a
Grade B intensity and therefore qualified, under a different section of law,52 to receive distant
network signals that may be (but need not be) from within state. This situation is shown in Figure
3. Satellite subscriber Z is located in state Y and in DMA F. Under SHVIA, the satellite operator
could provide subscriber Z local-into-local service consisting only of the signals of broadcast
television stations located in DMA F, even if none of those stations are located in state Y. Nor
could the satellite operator offer subscriber Z any distant network signals that originated from
state Y because subscriber Z is within the Grade B contour of the broadcast stations in city M.
Because of these rules, news or sports entertainment that was broadcast by a station in central
Wyoming or Arkansas often was not available to satellite subscribers in more remote parts of
those states that were within out-of-state DMAs.
Figure 3. Satellite Subscriber Whose Local Broadcast Television Stations, as Defined
by the DMA, Are in a Different State
Source: CRS.
51
FCC Information Sheet, “Television Broadcast Channels on Satellite,” dated May 2006, available at
http://www.fcc.gov (under Media Bureau and Information Sheet on Broadcast Signals on DBS), viewed on October 12,
2006.
52
The “distant network signal” license originated in the 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act and was extended in 1994 and
in the 1999 SHVIA. See 17 U.S.C. 119.
Congressional Research Service
17
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
This restriction on local-into-local service was not based on technological constraints or lack of
bandwidth (although the number of DMAs in which local-into-local service is offered may be
affected by bandwidth and satellite capacity constraints). Once a satellite operator has uplinked
the programming of a particular broadcast station to a satellite, there are no technical constraints
on making that signal available to all television households within the footprint of the satellite. (It
is true, however, that the greater use of spot beams has resulted in smaller footprints so there may
now be situations in which the broadcast signal of a station in a particular state is uplinked to a
satellite with a spot beam that does not cover other portions of the state that are located in a
different DMA.) But in most cases, the primary reason why a subscriber did not receive broadcast
signals from stations located outside that subscriber’s DMA was that the satellite operator, in
order to conform with the law, had to set the subscriber’s set-top box to exclude the out-of-DMA
signals emanating from its satellite.
The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) expanded the
scope of in-state television signals that may be of local interest to subscribers that satellite
operators are permitted (and, in the case of operators in Alaska and Hawaii, required) to offer
subscribers. In addition to the signals of those broadcast television stations with city of license
within the DMA in which the subscriber is located (“local-into-local” service), satellite operators
may offer (subject to certain limitations) signals from outside the DMA if those signals are
“significantly viewed” by those households in the subscriber’s geographic area that only receive
their broadcast signals over-the-air (not via cable or satellite). In addition, satellite operators may
offer certain subscribers located in New Hampshire, Vermont, Mississippi, and Oregon certain instate signals from outside the subscribers’ DMA and must offer subscribers in Alaska and Hawaii
certain in-state signals.
Specifically, the current restrictions on the retransmission of distant broadcast signals (i.e., signals
from outside the DMA in which the satellite subscriber is located) have been reduced as follows:
•
a satellite carrier may retransmit to a subscriber located in a community the
signal of any station located outside the local market in which that subscriber is
located if (1) the FCC had already determined, before the date of enactment of
SHVERA, that the signal could be carried by a cable operator in that community
because it was “significantly viewed” in that community, and such carriage was
permissible under the FCC’s network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity
rules; or (2) if the FCC determines, after the date of SHVERA enactment, that the
signal is “significantly viewed” in the community in accordance with the same
standards and procedures used to allow cable stations to carry “significantly
viewed” signals.53 In a Report and Order implementing SHVERA, the FCC
identified thousands of instances in which broadcast signals met the
“significantly viewed” criteria.54
53
P.L. 108-447, Title IX, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title II, Federal
Communications Commission Operations, Sec. 202 (47 U.S.C. 340(a)). 47 U.S.C. 340(b) lays out, separately for
analog service and for digital service, certain limitations on the signals that may be carried. It also excludes those
limitations when a subscriber is located in a local market (i.e., DMA) in which there are no network stations affiliated
with the same television network as the station whose signal is being retransmitted pursuant to the section, and provides
for a process by which a satellite company can seek a waiver of the limitations.
54
In the Matter of Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 and
Implementation of Section 340 of the Communications Act, MB Docket No. 05-49, Report and Order, adopted
November 2, 2005, released November 3, 2005, Appendix C. The 444-page appendix, which lists the significantly
viewed stations by state and city, is available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-187A2.pdf
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
•
the retransmission (secondary transmission) of these “significantly viewed”
broadcast signals are subject to a royalty-free compulsory copyright license—
exempting satellite carriers from paying copyright royalties. 55
•
the FCC, in implementing SHVERA, changed its rules covering retransmission
consent to allow a broadcaster located in a local market into which a satellite
carrier is retransmitting the distant signal of a station that is affiliated with the
same network as the local station to choose between making its signal available
to satellite carriers based on retransmission consent (receiving compensation) vs.
mandatory carriage (without compensation) on a county-specific basis rather than
DMA-wide, as currently required. 56 This change was deemed necessary because
satellite providers are now allowed to retransmit “significantly viewed” distant
signals that may duplicate the network programming of a local station, but
satellite carriage of those “significantly viewed” signals are determined on a
county-by-county rather than DMA-wide basis, and thus it was felt that the local
broadcaster should be able to make its retransmission consent/mandatory carriage
election on a county-by-county basis.
•
satellite carriers are allowed to retransmit the signal of WMUR, an ABC affiliate
located in Manchester, New Hampshire, which is the only commercial station in
that state affiliated with a major broadcast network, to any subscriber in that
state,57 subject to obtaining retransmission consent and meeting the provisions of
the FCC’s network non-duplication and syndication exclusivity rules. Such
carriage is subject to royalty payments under the compulsory copyright license
for the secondary transmission of distant broadcast signals.
•
satellite carriers are allowed to retransmit the four commercial, network-affiliated
stations that are located in the Burlington, Vermont DMA (which are the only
commercial stations in that state) to any subscriber in either of the counties in
that state outside the Burlington DMA (Windham and Bennington counties), 58
subject to obtaining retransmission consent and meeting the provisions of the
FCC’s network non-duplication and syndication exclusivity rules. Such carriage
is subject to royalty payments under the compulsory copyright license for the
secondary transmission of distant broadcast signals.
•
satellite carriers are allowed to retransmit the signals of any network-affiliated
broadcast television station in Oregon to the four counties in Oregon (Umatilla,
(...continued)
(viewed on January 9, 2008).
55
P.L. 108-447, Title IX, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title I, Statutory License
for Satellite Carriers, Sec. 102 (17 U.S.C. 119(a)(3)). Sec. 102 also includes a limitation and a process for waiving the
limitation. This royalty-free compulsory copyright license is not permanent; it will have to be renewed at the end of
2009.
56
In the Matter of Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004,
Procedural Rules, Order, adopted March 28, 2005, released March 30, 2005, implementing P.L. 108-447, Title IX,
Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title II, Federal Communications Commission
Operations, Sec. 202 (47 U.S.C. 340(h)(1)).
57
P.L. 108-447, Title IX, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title I, Statutory License
for Satellite Carriers, Sec. 102 (17 U.S.C. 119(a)(2)(C)(i)).
58
P.L. 108-447, Title IX, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title I, Statutory License
for Satellite Carriers, Sec. 102 (17 U.S.C. 119(a)(2)(C)(ii)).
Congressional Research Service
19
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
Grant, Malheur, and Wallowa) that are assigned to DMAs whose primary city is
outside that state.59 Also, a satellite carrier or cable company may elect to
retransmit to subscribers in Umatilla, Grant, Malheur, and Wallowa counties in
Oregon the broadcast signals of any television broadcast station in Oregon that
any cable operator or satellite carrier was retransmitting to subscribers in those
four counties on January 1, 2004.60 These retransmissions to those four counties
are subject to obtaining retransmission consent, to meeting the provisions of the
FCC’s network non-duplication and syndication exclusivity rules, and to royalty
payments under the compulsory copyright license for the secondary transmission
of distant broadcast signals.
•
satellite carriers are allowed to retransmit the signals of all network-affiliated
television broadcast station in Jackson, Mississippi to any subscriber in two
counties (Wilkinson and Amite) in that state;61 those counties are assigned to the
Baton Rouge, Louisiana DMA. These retransmissions to those two counties are
subject to obtaining retransmission consent, to meeting the provisions of the
FCC’s network non-duplication and syndication exclusivity rules, and to royalty
payments under the compulsory copyright license for the secondary transmission
of distant broadcast signals.
•
the geographic areas in Alaska that are not in any Nielsen DMA are to be
assigned by satellite carriers to one of the local markets (DMAs) in that state, in
order to allow the carriers to offer subscribers in those areas the local-into-local
service for the DMA to which they are assigned. 62
In addition, satellite carriers with more than 5 million subscribers must retransmit all of the
analog broadcast signals originating in Alaska and Hawaii within one year of the passage of
SHVERA, and all of the digital broadcast signals originating in Alaska and Hawaii within 30
months of the passage of SHVERA. These signals must be made available to substantially all of
the subscribers in their local markets (DMAs) and the signals from at least one of the local
markets in the state must be made available to substantially all of the subscribers in the state not
located in a DMA. The cost to subscribers of such transmission shall not exceed the cost of
retransmission of local television stations in other states.63
59
P.L. 108-447, Title IX, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title I, Statutory License
for Satellite Carriers, Sec. 102 (17 U.S.C. 119(a)(2)(C)(iii)).
60
P.L. 108-447, Title IX, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title II, Federal
Communications Commission Operations, Sec. 211, Carriage of Television Signals to Certain Subscribers (47 U.S.C.
341). If the cable operator or satellite carrier is authorized to carry less than three broadcast station signals, then it may
elect to retransmit up to two broadcast signals. As a consequence of this provision, cable and satellite carriers can:
provide subscribers in Grant County the signals of KGW (NBC) and KOPB (PBS) from Portland, Oregon; provide
subscribers in Malheur County the signals of KGW (NBC) from Portland, Oregon and KTVR (PBS) from La Grande,
Oregon; provide subscribers in Umatilla County the signals of KATU (ABC), KGW (NBC), KOIN (CBS), KPTV
(FOX), and KOPB (PBS) from Portland, Oregon, KFFX (FOX) of Pendleton, Oregon, and KTVR (PBS) from La
Grande, Oregon; and provide subscribers in Wallowa County the signals of KGW (NBC) and KPTV (FOX) from
Portland, Oregon, and KTVR (PBS) from La Grande, Oregon.
61
P.L. 108-447, Title IX, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title I, Statutory License
for Satellite Carriers, Sec. 102 (17 U.S.C. 119(a)(2)(iv).
62
P.L. 108-447, Title IX, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title I, Statutory License
for Satellite Carriers, Sec. 111(b) (17 U.S.C. 119(a)(16).
63
P.L. 108-447, Title IX, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, Title II, Federal
Communications Commission Operations, Sec. 210, Satellite Carriage of Television Stations in Noncontiguous States
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
Referring back to Figure 3, SHVERA may expand upon the availability of programming of
interest to subscriber Z if there are broadcast signals originating in state Y, but outside DMA F
that meet the “significantly viewed” criteria, or if subscriber Z happens to be located in a state
and county covered by one of the state-specific provisions in the act. Given the high likelihood
that the satellite carrier already is uploading these broadcast signals to serve customers in the
DMAs in which the signals originate (and the royalty-free compulsory copyright license for
“significantly viewed” signals), it would appear that the only reasons that the satellite carrier
might choose not to offer this additional programming to subscriber Z would be if it failed to
negotiate a retransmission consent agreement with the license holder of the “significantly
viewed” broadcast signal to cover subscriber Z (and other subscribers that previously could not be
served) or if subscriber Z were not located in the footprint to which the signal was currently being
beamed.
In some situations, the provisions in SHVERA that expand the number of in-state signals
potentially available to satellite subscribers will provide an additional public policy benefit.
Candidates for public office who have had to reach many of the citizens of their state through
high-priced advertising on out-of-state, big city stations may now be able to reach those citizens
through lower-priced advertising on in-state stations. This could reduce the costs associated with
political campaigns.
Issues for Congress
Localism remains one of the cornerstones of U.S. media policy. There are a small number of
broadcast television stations relative to the number of local governmental jurisdictions. Moreover,
every full power television station broadcasts signals that extend far beyond the borders of its city
of license. Thus, when a particular station is assigned a city of license to serve, there will always
be many nearby local jurisdictions that the licensee has no explicit or specific obligation to serve.
Where the broadcast coverage area extends across governmental boundaries, and especially state
borders, it is difficult for a broadcaster to fully address the needs of all jurisdictions. Broadcasters,
of course, have the incentive to meet the needs and interests of as many of its potential viewers as
possible. Most television broadcasters attempt to reconcile this by covering issues of general
interest, such as crime and weather, and/or regional interest, such as transportation systems.
However, some current statutory and regulatory requirements do not provide incentives, or even
make it more difficult, for broadcast, cable, and satellite providers of television to meet the needs
and interests of their communities. If Congress wants the FCC to systematically review its rules
to eliminate any disincentives to localism or to clarify licensee obligations, it could pass
legislation instructing the Commission to do so.
Broadcaster Obligations Within the City of License
As explained earlier, the FCC’s first priority when it assigns licenses is to provide general service
to an area, and its second priority is to provide the first local service to a community. Most
broadcast television stations are attentive to the needs and interests of the viewers in their city of
(...continued)
(47 U.S.C. 338(a)(4)). Within one year of passage of SHVERA, the broadcast stations must choose between making
their signals available under the terms of retransmission consent or under mandatory carriage.
Congressional Research Service
21
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
license. It is in their self-interest to be responsive to their viewers. Their market incentives may
diverge from this goal, however, if their city of license is an outlying city to a much larger city
and their signal covers the larger city.
As shown in Figure 4, the grade B contour of the station licensed to outlying city O fully covers
major city M. In this situation, the licensee may have a stronger incentive to serve the needs and
interests of the larger city. This incentive may be stronger yet if the city of license is in a different
state than the larger city.
Figure 4. Broadcast Station Whose City of License Is an
Outlying City to a Major City, but Whose Signal Covers the Major City
Source: CRS.
That incentive may affect how the station markets itself—for example, as a station in the outlying
city of license or as a station in the larger city across the state line. This, in turn, may affect how
the station is identified, geographically, by the industry. The Television & Cable Factbook is a
widely used annual industry source book that presents data on each television station, by state. In
the 2004 edition, seven television stations with city of license in one state, but located in a DMA
whose principal city was in a neighboring state, were listed under the neighboring state. In the
2005 edition, five of those stations continued to be listed under the neighboring state; in the 2006
edition, none of them was listed under the neighboring state. Also, in the 2004 and 2005 editions,
the city listings for all seven stations were hyphenated, with the large city listed first and the
Congressional Research Service
22
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
smaller city listed second. In the 2006 edition, each station was listed under the actual city of
license only, with no reference to the larger city.64 According to the publishers of the Television &
Cable Factbook, its editors, not the stations, determined how to list each station. In 2006, it made
the decision to list the stations by city (and, hence, state) of license, rather than using hyphenated
market designations with the major city listed first.
During 2004, the FCC opened a proceeding on broadcast localism,65 but to date has not proposed
or adopted any rules relating to localism. Congress might choose to direct the FCC, in that
proceeding, to undertake a rulemaking to explicitly identify, or provide written guidance about,
the obligations of licensees with city of license in an outlying city to a major city to specifically
serve the needs and interests of the viewers in their city of license.66 It also might choose to direct
64
These listings were as follows:
Station
City of
License
State Listed City listed State Listed City Listed State Listed City Listed
in 2004
in 2004
in 2005
in 2005
in 2006
in 2006
WFUT
Newark, NJ
New York
New YorkNewark, NJ
New YorkNew Jersey
Newark, NJ
Newark
WNJU
Linden, NJ
New York
New YorkNew YorkNew Jersey
New Jersey
Newark, NJ
Newark, NJ
Linden
WXTV
Paterson, NJ
New York
New YorkNew YorkNew York
New Jersey
Paterson, NJ
Paterson, NJ
Paterson
WWOR Secaucus, NJ
New York
New YorkSecaucus,
NJ
New YorkNew Jersey
Secaucus, NJ
Secaucus
WCTV
Thomasville,
GA
Florida
Tallahassee,
FLThomasville,
GA
Florida
Tallahassee,
FLThomasville,
GA
Georgia
Thomasville
WRBU
East St. Louis,
IL
Missouri
St. LouisEast St.
Louis, IL
Missouri
St. LouisEast St.
Louis, IL
Illinois
East St. Louis
KBJR
Superior, WI
Minnesota
DuluthSuperior,
WI
Wisconsin
DuluthSuperior,
WI
Wisconsin
Superior
New York
New York
65
Notice of Inquiry, In the Matter of Broadcast Localism, MB Docket No. 04-223, adopted June 7, 2004, and released
July 1, 2004. Initial comments are due on November 1, 2004.
66
Commission decisions to date do not provide explicit guidance. For example, in the FCC license renewal decision
most on point here, In re Application of WHYY, Inc. for Renewal of License of Station WHYY-TV, Wilmington,
Delaware, 93 F.C.C. 2d 1086 (1983), the Broadcast and Communications Commission of the City Council of
Wilmington, Delaware challenged renewal of the license, alleging that the station broadcast more programming that
focused on Philadelphia than on Wilmington. The Commission found that over its “last license term, WHYY provided
an average of less than 3-3 ½ hours per week of programming exclusively addressed to the needs and interests of
Delaware residents. Thus, it would appear there has been an erosion in the commitments which led the Commission to
grant the construction permit application of WHYY. This erosion, however, does not indicate that WHYY has failed to
fulfill its obligations and to treat Wilmington as its primary service area. As the Commission has previously stated,
‘licensees are not bound to strict, inflexible adherence to program proposals, but are afforded broad discretion in the
manner in which they respond to community problems.’ Educational Broadcasting Corporation ... 31 FCC 85 (1961).”
(93 F.C.C. 2d 1095). In the decision, the Commission goes on to state: “Programming which reflects service to
Wilmington as WHYY’s primary service area is not limited to programming which exclusively involves Delaware
persons and issues. Regional, national and international topics may be of interest to residents of Wilmington as well as
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
23
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
the Commission to address how it would enforce those obligations. For example, under what
circumstances, if any, could failure to serve the needs and interests of its community of license
result in a license not being renewed (or being revoked)?
Broadcaster Obligations Beyond the City of License
At the same time, current FCC rules are not clear about the broadcast television licensees’
obligations to serve viewers within their service area who are beyond the borders of the city of
license, but not in a larger nearby city with its own licensed broadcast television stations. As
shown in Figure 1, in many situations, the television household population beyond the city of
license exceeds that within the city of license. This, in itself, provides broadcasters with some
economic incentive to be responsive to the needs and interests of these viewers. But news and
information programming is relatively expensive to produce, and unless such programming is of
general interest to a relatively broad portion of the potential viewing audience, there is always the
risk of losing audience. Thus, Congress might choose to direct the Commission, as part of its
current proceeding on broadcast localism, to explicitly identify, or provide written guidance
about, the obligations of licensees to serve the portion of their viewership that lies outside the city
of license but not in large nearby cities with their own licensed broadcast television station. It also
might choose to direct the Commission to address how it would enforce those obligations.
Broadcaster Obligations and Multicasting
In 1999, the FCC issued a notice of inquiry concerning the public interest obligations of broadcast
television licensees as they transition to digital television.67 The Commission subsequently has
issued two notices of proposed rulemaking as well as periodic reviews of the Commission’s rules
and policies affecting the conversion to digital television, and in September 2004 voted to adopt
children’s programming obligations for digital television broadcasters.68 The Commission has
incorporated the relevant portions of the comments received in those rulemakings and periodic
reviews into its broadcast localism proceeding.69
Technological change has the potential to help broadcasters better meet the local needs of their
viewers. With digital transmission, one option available to licensees is to use their 6 MHz of
(...continued)
programs specifically designed for Delaware. The interests of Delaware residents, it can be concluded, flow beyond the
confines of the borders of Delaware to topics of interest outside the state. Such interests are addressed by such national
programs as the McNeil-Lehrer Report, Wall Street Week, Over Easy, and The Advocates, which are broadcast by the
licensee. However, despite the wealth of national programs, an educational licensee must also provide a local program
service which addresses the unique problems, needs and interests of the community it is licensed to serve.” Id. at 10951096.
67
Public Interest Obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees, 14 FCC Rcd 21633 (1999), commonly known as the “DTV
Public Interest NOI.”
68
See, for example, Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public
Interest Obligations, 15 FCC Rcd 19186 (2000); Children’s Television Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters,
15 FCC Rcd 22946 (2000); Second Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion
to Digital Television, 18 FCC Rcd 1279 (2003); FCC Press Release, “FCC Adopts Children’s Programming
Obligations for Digital Television Broadcasters,” Report and Order FCC 04-221, MM Docket 00-167, adopted and
announced September 9, 2004.
69
Notice of Inquiry, In the Matter of Broadcast Localism, MB Docket No. 04-223, adopted June 7, 2004 and released
July 1, 2004, at paragraph 8.
Congressional Research Service
24
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
spectrum for multicasting—that is, to broadcast multiple programming streams. As the
Commission develops rules addressing digital broadcast television public interest obligations, it
might try to construct rules that foster programming that meets the possibly divergent needs of
viewers within the city of license and viewers beyond the city of license. For example, it might
consider modifying the current rule that requires cable operators to carry only the primary
programming stream of each local television broadcaster by requiring cable operators to carry
each programming stream that offers distinct programming aimed at a different, previously
unserved geographic portion of the broadcaster’s serving area.70 This could explicitly address
those situations in which a broadcaster’s serving area crosses state borders, awarding the
broadcaster must carry rights for a second signal if the programming on that signal specifically
addresses the needs and interests of the viewing households in the second state. If the FCC were
to consider this approach, it would want to take into account the impact on cable systems of
requiring them to carry additional broadcast channels. It also would want to determine how best
to construct a rule that did not artificially encourage or discourage broadcasters from choosing
multicasting over other potential applications of digital technology to their 6 MHz of spectrum,
such as high definition television. Congress might choose to direct the FCC, in its current
proceeding on implementation of the digital transition, to study and construct recommendations
for rules (and, if necessary, statutory changes) to address the potentially related issues of
mandatory carriage of multiple broadcast signals and better serving the needs and interests of
viewers in different governmental jurisdictions.
Increasing the Flexibility of Cable Carriage Rules
As explained earlier, the existing array of must carry and non-duplication rules and compulsory
copyright license fees may restrict or discourage cable operators that happen to be located in a
DMA that has its primary city in another state from carrying the signals of broadcasters in their
own state that are located in a different DMA. This can decrease viewer access to both
informational and entertainment programming of state-wide interest. The data presented in Table
1 suggest this may not be an isolated occurrence. In many states a substantial number and
percentage of television households are in DMAs in which the primary city is located outside the
state and in which most of the television stations have city of license outside the state.
However, there is a degree of flexibility in the must carry rules (the statutory provision allowing
cable operators to request that they be allowed to carry signals from outside their DMA that
would foster localism), the non-duplication rules (allowing “significantly viewed” stations to be
carried without having duplicated programming blocked), and the copyright laws (providing a
royalty-free permanent compulsory copyright license for the secondary transmission of
programming of broadcast stations that are “significantly viewed” in the cable system’s service
area).
Congress might choose to direct the FCC, when reviewing its existing rules as part of its current
broadcast localism proceeding, to heed the flexibility that Congress has given it to implement and
administer its rules in a fashion that fosters localism. It might instruct the Commission to study
whether there are narrowly-defined conditions under which the existing non-duplication rules can
be loosened to foster the cable carriage of programming of state-wide interest without
70
But Supreme Court rulings relating to First Amendment constraints on government regulation of broadcast stations
have set heightened scrutiny when the speech to be regulated is content-based rather than content-neutral (Turner
Broadcasting Sys. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622 (1994) at 642-3).
Congressional Research Service
25
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
undermining the goals and objectives of those rules. It also might ask the Commission to explore
how it could best allow exceptions to its current rule that uses DMAs to determine which
broadcast television signals a cable company must carry. As indicated earlier, the Commission has
ruled that only broadcast licensees and cable operators have standing to request exceptions to the
current rule restricting must carry rights to stations within the DMA. The Commission might
investigate whether it would be in the public interest for other parties, such as state officials, to be
able to make such a request based on a demonstratively positive impact on localism. It also might
investigate whether it would be in the public interest for the Commission, itself, to have the right
to propose an exception to the rule on its own authority. If it were to reach the conclusion that
such authority would be in the public interest, it might recommend to Congress that the statute be
modified to give it that authority.71
The Commission already has concluded that the parties currently with standing to seek an
exception—the broadcast licensee and the cable system operator—have knowledge of key
relevant parameters (for example, the demand for particular types of programming, the
programming available both on the specific broadcast station and on the cable system, the
geographic reach of the broadcast station’s grade B contours, etc.) not readily available to state
officials or the FCC. Adding or deleting must carry stations will change the array of programming
available to the cable system’s subscribers and any party seeking to change the line-up of
channels should have sufficient information on subscribers’ preferences to be confident that
consumers will be better served by the proposed change in programming.
Increasing the Flexibility of Satellite Local-into-Local Programming
By passing SHVERA in November 2004, Congress expanded the scope of in-state television
programming that satellite operators are permitted (but not required) to offer subscribers. In
Alaska and Hawaii, that expansion in mandatory. The combination of a generic change in law—
allowing satellite providers to offer programming that is “significantly viewed” by over-the-air
television viewers—and several state-specific provisions intended to address restricted access to
programming in six states may significantly reduce consumer complaints that they are not able to
receive programming via satellite that meets their needs and interests. The effectiveness of
SHVERA, however, will not be determined until it has been in operation long enough to find out
if the criteria in the rules and limitations associated with the “significantly viewed” provision
allow for a real expansion in the signals made available to satellite subscribers. If the
“significantly viewed” provision does not provide relief for subscribers seeking programming that
meets state-specific needs and interests, then it is likely that bills will be introduced in the 110th
Congress that seek state-specific or county-specific solutions analogous to the ones involving
New Hampshire, Vermont, Mississippi, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii in SHVERA. Several such
bills already have been introduced, as described below.
71
With respect to copyright, some observers claim that the carriage of in-state programming would be fostered by
expanding the congressionally mandated royalty-free compulsory license to include the secondary transmission of
signals of those stations located in the same state, but outside the DMA, of the cable franchise, but that are not
“significantly viewed” by television households in the county in which the cable franchise is located. Copyright holders
argue, however, that now that cable is no longer an infant industry it is inappropriate to maintain the current royaltyfree compulsory license, no less expand its scope.
Congressional Research Service
26
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
Bills Introduced in the 110th Congress
To date, three bills that address cable and satellite carriage of local broadcast television station
signals have been introduced in the 110th Congress. Senator Allard has introduced S. 124, which
would allow satellite operators to offer subscribers located in two counties in the southwestern
corner of Colorado the signals of broadcasters in Denver, even though those counties are not
located in the Denver DMA (analogous to the provisions in SHVERA affecting subscribers in
certain counties in New Hampshire, Vermont, Mississippi, and Oregon), and also would allow
cable operators in those two counties to carry the primary signal of any network station located in
Denver. Senator Salazar has introduced S. 760, which, in addition to the two provisions in S. 124,
would waive the retransmission rules to allow a satellite carrier, cable system, or translator station
to carry the primary signal of a network station located in a state to subscribers in that state who
otherwise would not receive the primary signal of that network because those subscribers are
located in a DMA outside of the state if two conditions are met: (1) the FCC determines that it is
in the best interest of the public welfare, and (2) the satellite carrier, cable system, or translator
station agrees to also carry the primary signal of the network station in the assigned DMA.
Representative Boren has introduced H.R. 602, which would modify the retransmission rules to
allow a satellite carrier to provide the signals of network stations located in Oklahoma to
subscribers who reside in Oklahoma but do not currently receive the signal of any network station
located in that state because of their assignment to a DMA receiving network stations located
outside Oklahoma, if those subscribers choose to receive the Oklahoma signals rather than the
out-of-state signals.
Representative Ross has introduced H.R. 2821, which would: amend section 352(b)(2) of the
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 352(b)(2)) to permit satellite carriers and cable operators to
retransmit the signals of local television broadcast stations to any DMA that is adjacent to, and at
least partially located in the same state as, the DMA in which the broadcast station is located;
amend section 122 of the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 122) to allow satellite operators to
retransmit the signals of those local broadcast stations into those adjacent DMAs under a royaltyfree statutory copyright license; and instruct the FCC to revise the regulations concerning
network non-duplication protection, syndicated exclusivity protection, and sports blackout
protection (47 CFR § 76) to permit retransmission if the subscriber receiving the signals is
located in any of those adjacent DMAs.
Congressional Research Service
27
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
Table 1.Television Households in Each State That Are Located in Designated Market Areas (DMAs)
for Which the Primary City is Outside the State
State
# TV
households
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Atlanta, GA DMA:
Cleburne, Randolph
5,790+8,960+
7.16%
Atlanta, GA DMA: no station with city of license in AL;
Columbus, GA DMA:
Chambers, Lee, Russell,
Barbour
14,660+48,700+19,770+10,650+
Columbus, GA DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in Opelika, AL and
1 (UHF analog and digital) noncommercial station
transmitting from Louisville, AL;
Columbus-Tupelo-West
Point, MS DMA: Lamar
6,450+
Columbus-Tupelo-West Point, MS DMA: no station with
city of license in AL;
Meridian, MS DMA:
Sumter, Choctaw
5,500+6,190=126,670
Meridian, MS DMA: no station with city of license in AL
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
DMA: County
Alabama
1,768,300
Alaska
193,630
none—but some
extremely low density
areas lie outside DMAs
0
0.00%
Arizona
2,046,350
Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM
DMA: Apache-North
13,390
0.65%
Albuquerque-Santa Fe, NM DMA: no station with city of
license in AZ
Arkansas
1,057,360
Memphis, TN DMA:
Mississippi, Crittenden,
Poinsett, Cross, Saint
Francis, Lee, Phillips
18,740+18,660+ 9,930+7,380+
9,780+
4,070+ 9,020+
21.17%
Memphis, TN DMA: no station with city of license in AR;
Springfield, MO DMA:
Fulton, Baxter, Marion,
Boone, Newton, Carroll
4,790+ 16,900+6,940+
14,220+3,530+ 10,380+
Springfield, MO DMA: 1 UHF analog commercial station
with city of license in Eureka Springs, AR and 1 UHF
analog commercial station with city of license in Harrison,
AR;
Shreveport, LA DMA:
Howard, Sevier, Little
River, Hempstead, Nevada,
Miller, Lafayette, Columbia
5,370+5,560+5,370+
8,840+3,790+15,650+
3,330+9,680+
Shreveport, LA DMA: no station with city of license in
AR;
CRS-28
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
DMA: County
California
11,774,780
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Greenwood-Greenville,
MS DMA: Chicot
4,950+
Greenwood-Greenville, MS DMA: no station with city of
license in AR;
Monroe, LA-El Dorado,
AR DMA: Union, Ashley
17,760+
9,230=
223,870
Monroe, LA.-El Dorado, AR DMA: no station with city of
license in AR
Reno, NV DMA: Alpine, El
Dorado East, Mono,
Lassen
480+13,770+4,690+
9,560+
Medford-Klamath Falls, OR
DMA: Siskiyou
17,610+
Medford-Klamath Falls, OR DMA: no station with city of
license in CA;
Yuma, AZ-El Centro, CA
DMA: Imperial
41,550=
87,660
Yuma, AZ-El Centrro, CA DMA: 1 VHF analog Foxaffiliated commercial station with city of license in El
Centro, CA and 1 VHF analog Univision-affiliated
commercial station with city of license in El Centro
0.74%
Reno, NV DMA: no station with city of license in CA;
Colorado
1,738,830
Albuquerque, NM DMA:
Montezuma, La Plata
9,390+17,340=
26,730
1.54%
Albuquerque, NM DMA: 1 (VHF analog and digital) CBSaffiliated commercial station that is a satellite of an
Albuquerque station, and 1 UHF analog Telemundoaffiliated commercial station that is a satellite of an
Albuquerque station, all with city of license in Durango,
CO
Connecticut
1,331,810
New York City, NY DMA:
Fairfield
330,490
24.82%
New York City, NY DMA: 1 UHF analog commercial
station with city of license in Bridgeport, CT, and 1 (UHF
analog and digital) noncommercial station transmitting
from Bridgeport, CT
CRS-29
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Philadelphia, PA DMA:
Kent, New Castle
49,460+195,540+
100.00%
Philadelphia, PA DMA: 1 UHF analog commercial station
with city of license in Wilmington, DE, and 1 (UHF analog
and digital) noncommercial station transmitting from
Wilmington;
Salisbury, MD DMA:
Sussex
68,630=
313,630
DMA: County
Delaware
313,630
Salisbury, MD DMA: 1 UHF analog noncommercial station
transmitting from Seaford, DE
District of
Columbia
244,270
none
0
0.00%
Florida
6,728,860
Mobile, AL-Pensacola-Fort
Walton Beach, FL DMA:
Okaloosa, Santa Rosa,
Escambia
71,260+47,830+
115,610=
234,700
3.49%
Mobile, AL-Pensacola-Fort Walton Beach, FL DMA: 3
UHF analog commercial stations with city of license in
Fort Walton Beach, FL, 3 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial stations (including 1 ABC affiliate) with city of
license in Pensacola, FL, and 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Pensacola, FL
Georgia
3,195,950
Greenville-SpartanburgAnderson, SC-Asheville,
NC DMA: Stephens,
Franklin, Hart, Elbert
10,390+8,290+9,650+
8,320+
9.58%
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC-Asheville, NC
DMA: 1 UHF analog CBS-affiliated commercial station
with city of license in Toccoa, GA;
Jacksonville, FL DMA:
Charlton, Camden, Ware,
Glynn, Brantley, Pierce
3,400+ 15,490+13,310+
28,130+5,930+6,250+
Jacksonville, FL DMA: 1 UHF analog commercial station
with city of license in Brunswick, GA;
Chattanooga, TN DMA:
Dade, Walker, Catoosa,
Whitfield, Murray,
Chatooga
5,980+24,050+22,230+
30,010+14,780+
10,260+
Chattanooga, TN DMA: 1 UHF analog commercial station
with city of license in Dalton, GA, and 1 (UHF analog and
digital) noncommercial station transmitting from
Chatsworth-Dalton, GA;
Dothan, AL DMA: Early,
Seminole
4,820+3,640+
Dothan, AL DMA: no station with city of license in GA;
CRS-30
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
DMA: County
Tallahassee, FLThomasville, GA DMA:
Decatur, Grady, Thomas,
Brooks, Lowndes, Lanier,
Echols
10,680+9,080+16,940+6,430+
33,980+2,730+
1,360=
306,130
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Tallahassee, FL-Thomasville, GA DMA: 1 UHF analog
FOX-affiliated commercial station with city of license in
Bainbridge, GA, and 1 VHF analog CBS-affiliated
commercial station with city of license in Thomasville, GA
Hawaii
412,190
none
0
0.00%
ID
486,450
Salt Lake City, UT DMA:
Oneida, Franklin, Bear
Lake
1,430+3,650+
2,340+
24.02%
Spokane, WA DMA:
Boundary, Bonner,
Shoshone, Kootenai,
Benewah, Latah, Idaho,
Clearwater, Lewis, Nez
Perce
3,450+ 14,710+
5,760+ 43,920+3,560+
12,330+5,840+3,390+
1,510+14,950=
116,840
St. Louis, MO DMA:
Randolph, Monroe, St.
Clair, Washington,
Clinton, Marion, Clay,
Fayette, Montgomery,
Macoupin, Greene, Jersey,
Calhoun, Bond, Madison
12,170+11,020+96,610+
5,830+13,050+
16,190+5,770+8,160+
11,380+19,590+5,560+
8,220+2,060+6,340+
103,330+
Evansville, IN DMA:
Wayne, Edwards, Wabash,
White
7,180+2,890+5,140+
6,430+
Evansville, IN DMA: no station with city of license in IL;
Terre Haute, IN DMA:
Clark, Jasper, Crawford,
Richland, Lawrence
7,150+3,850+7,750+
6,560+6,180+
Terre Haute, IN DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Olney, IL;
Illinois
CRS-31
4,648,990
Salt Lake City, UT DMA: no station with city of license in
ID;
Spokane, WA DMA: 1 (VHF analog and digital) CBSaffiliated commercial station, affiliated with a station in
Yakima, WA, with city of license in Lewiston, ID, 1 (UHF
analog and digital) noncommercial station transmitting
from Couer d’Alene, ID, and 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Moscow, ID
14.77%
St. Louis, MO DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in East St. Louis, IL;
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
DMA: County
Indiana
CRS-32
2,382,900
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Paducah, KY-Cape
Girardeau, MO-Mount
Vernon, IL DMA: Jefferson,
Perry, Franklin, Hamilton,
Gallatin, Saline,
Williamson, Jackson,
Union, Johnson, Hardin,
Pope, Massac, Pulaski,
Alexander
15,560+8,940+16,240+
3,330+2,650+10,810+
25,760+23,450+7,320+
4,310+1,990+1,770+
6,210+2,860+3,720+
Paducah, KY-Cape Girardeau, MO-Mount Vernon, IL
DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital) commercial station with
city of license in Marion, IL, 1 (VHF analog and digital)
ABC-affiliated commercial station with city of license in
Harrisburg, IL, 1 VHF analog commercial station with city
of license in Mt. Vernon, IL, 1 (VHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Carbondale, IL;
Davenport, IA-Rock
Island-Moline, IL DMA:
Henderson, Warren,
Knox, Mercer, Henry,
Bureau, Rock Island,
Whiteside, Carroll, Jo
Daviess
3,400+7,040+21,780+
6,640+20,190+14,170+
60,110+23,860+6,720+
9,510=
686,750
Davenport, IA-Rock Island-Moline, IL DMA: 1 (VHF
analog and digital) CBS-affiliated commercial station with
city of license in Rock Island, IL, 1 (VHF analog and digital)
ABC-affiliated commercial station with city of license in
Moline, and 1 (UHF analog and digital) noncommercial
station transmitting from Moline, IL
Chicago, IL DMA: Lake,
Porter, La Porte, Newton,
Jasper
182,170+56,790+
41,320+5,460+11,160+
Cincinnati, OH DMA:
Union, Franklin, Ripley,
Dearborn, Ohio,
Switzerland
2,760+7.980+10,270+
17,540+2,270+3,670+
Cincinnati, OH DMA: no station with city of license in IN;
Louisville, KY DMA:
Harrison, Floyd, Clark,
Crawford, Orange,
Washington, Scott,
Jefferson, Jennings, Jackson
13,660+27,810+40,120+
4,260+7,570+10,540+
9,120+12,330+10,610+
16,460+
Louisville, KY DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in Salem, IN;
Dayton, OH DMA: Wayne
27,950=
521,820
Dayton, OH DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital) commercial
station with city of license in Richmond, IN
21.90%
Chicago, IL DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital) commercial
station with city of license in Hammond, IN, and 1 UHF
analog noncommercial station transmitting from Gary, IN;
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Omaha, NE DMA:
Crawford, Harrison,
Shelby, Cass,
Pottawattamie, Mills,
Montgomery, Fremont,
Page
6,360+6,270+5,150+
6,130+34,260+5,470+
4,670+3,160+6,510+
12.68%
Omaha, NE DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Council Bluffs,
IA, and 1 UHF analog noncommercial station transmitting
from Red Oak, IA;
Sioux Falls, SD DMA:
Lyon, Osceola
4,210+2,750+
Sioux Falls, SD DMA: no station with city of license in IA;
Rochester, MN-Mason
City, IA-Austin, MN DMA:
Winnebago, Worth,
Mitchell, Howard,
Hancock, Cerro Gordo,
Floyd
4,670+3,280+4,130+
3,850+4,740+19,070+
6,730+
Rochester, MN-Mason City, IA-Austin, MN DMA: 1 (VHF
analog and digital) CBS-affiliated commercial station with
city of license in Mason City, IA, and 1 UHF analog
noncommercial station transmitting from Mason City, IA;
Quincy, IL-Hannibal, MOKeokuk, IA DMA: Lee
4,770=
146,180
Quincy, IL-Hannibal, MO-Keokuk, IA DMA: no station
with city of license in IA
Kansas City, MO DMA:
Atchison, Leavenworth,
Wyandotte, Douglas,
Johnson, Franklin, Miami,
Anderson, Linn
6,240+23,870+
58,030+38,970+
186,740+10,910+9,510+
3,150+3,950+
Tulsa, OK DMA:
Chautaqua, Montgomery
1,750+14,210+
Tulsa, OK DMA: no station with city of license in KS;
Lincoln and HastingsKearney, NE DMA:
Phillips, Smith, Jewell,
Republic
2,350+1,880+1,690+
2,480+
Lincoln and Hastings-Kearney, NE DMA: no station with
city of license in KS;
St. Joseph, MO DMA:
Doniphan
3,290+
St. Joseph, MO DMA: no station with city of license in KS;
DMA: County
Iowa
1,152,630
Kansas
CRS-33
1,044,100
40.76%
Kansas City, MO DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in Lawrence, KS;
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
DMA: County
Kentucky
CRS-34
1,624,650
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Joplin, MO-Pittsburg, KS
DMA: Woodson, Allen,
Bourbon, Wilson, Neosho,
Crawford, Labette,
Cherokee
1,540+5,610+6,090+
3,850+6,640+15,180+
8,890+8,770=
425,590
Nashville, TN DMA: Trigg,
Christian, Todd, Logan,
Simpson, Allen, Monroe,
Cumberland, Clinton
5,380+24,600+4,310+
10,340+6,500+7,090+
4,700+2,880+4,080+
Cincinnati, OH DMA:
Kenton, Campbell,
Gallatin, Owen, Grant,
Pendleton, Bracken,
Mason, Roberston, Boone
60,400+35,400+2,960+
4,080+8,890+5,360+
3,280+6,850+870+
35,080+
Cincinnati, OH DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Covington, KY,
and 1 (UHF analog and digital) noncommercial station
transmitting from Owenton, KY;
Knoxville, TN DMA:
McCreary, Bell, Harlan,
6,520+11,980+12,820+
Knoxville, TN DMA: 1 UHF analog commercial station
with city of license in Harlan, KY;
Charleston-Huntington,
WV DMA: Lewis,
Greenup, Carter, Boyd,
Elliott, Lawrence, Johnson,
Martin, Floyd, Pike
5,550+14,660+10,590+
19,650+2,760+6,070+
8,880+4,920+16,960+
27,020+
Charleston-Huntington, WV DMA: 1 (UHF analog and
digital) commercial station with city of license in Ashland,
KY; 1 (UHF analog and digital) noncommercial station
transmitting from Ashland, KY; 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Pikeville, KY;
Tri-Cities (KingsportJohnson City, TN-Bristol,
VA) DMA: Letcher, Leslie
9,930+4,680+
Tri-Cities (Kingsport-Johnson City, TN-Bristol, VA) DMA:
no station with city of license in KY;
Evansville, IN DMA: Union,
Henderson, Daviess,
Hancock, Webster,
McLean, Ohio, Hopkins,
Muhlenberg
5,580+18,360+36,580+
3,230+5,400+4,050+
9,070+18,580+12,090=
508,980
Evansville, IN DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in Madisonville,
KY, 1 (UHF analog and digital) noncommercial station
transmitting from Madisonville, KY, and 1 (UHF analog
and digital) noncommercial station transmitting from
Owensboro, KY
Joplin, MO-Pittsburg, KS DMA: 1 (VHF analog and digital)
CBS-affiliated commercial station with city of license in
Pittsburg, KS
31.33%
Nashville, TN DMA: no station with city of license in KY;
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
DMA: County
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Louisiana
1,667,710
none
0
0.00%
Maine
534,740
none
0
0.00%
Maryland
2,075,720
Washington, DC DMA:
Frederick, Washington,
Montgomery, Prince
George’s Charles, Calvert,
St. Mary’s, Allegheny
77,010+51,710+
341,700+298,970+
45,330+28,310+32,390+29,350+
44.13%
Pittsburgh, PA DMA:
Garrett
11,270=
916,040
Albany-Schenectady-Troy,
NY DMA: Berkshire
55,730+
Providence, RI-New
Bedford, MA DMA: Bristol
211,920=
267,650
Green Bay-Appleton, WI
DMA: Menominee
10,760+
Toledo, OH DMA:
Lenawee
37,380+
Toledo, OH DMA: no station with city of license in MI;
South Bend-Elkhart, IN
DMA: Berrien, Cass
63,850+20,120+
South Bend-Elkhart, IN DMA: no station with city of
license in MI;
Massachusetts
Michigan
CRS-35
2,487,160
3,867,220
Washington, DC DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial NBC-affiliated station with city of license in
Hagerstown, MD, 1 UHF analog commercial station with
city of license in Hagerstown, MD, 1 (UHF analog and
digital) noncommercial station transmitting from
Hagerstown, MD, and 1 UHF analog noncommercial
station transmitting from Frederick, MD
Pittsburgh, PA DMA: 1 UHF analog noncommercial
station transmitting from Oakland, MD
10.76%
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY DMA: 1 (UHF analog and
digital) ABC-affiliated commercial station that is a satellite
of an Albany station with city of license in Adams, MA
Providence, RI-New Bedford, MA DMA: no station with
city of license in MA
3.60%
Green Bay-Appleton, WI DMA: no station with city of
license in MI (1 VHF analog CBS-affiliated commercial
station with city of license in Escanaba, MI is in the
Marquette, MI DMA but is a satellite of a Green Bay
station);
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
DMA: County
Minnesota
Mississippi
CRS-36
1,951,070
1,059,080
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Duluth, MN-Superior, WI
DMA: Gogebic
7,060=
139,170
Duluth, MN-Superior, WI DMA: no station with city of
license in MI
Sioux Falls, SD DMA:
Lincoln, Pipestone, Murray,
Rock, Nobles
2,640+3,940+
3,670+3,960+7,910+
Fargo-Valley City, ND
DMA: Kittson, Roseau,
Lake of the Woods,
Marshall, Pennington, Red
Lake, Polk, Clearwater,
Norman, Mahnomen, Clay,
Becker, Wilkin, Otter Tail
2,070+6,300+
1,820+4,040+5,530+
1,660+12,480+3,220+
2,960+1,980+19,260+
12,130+2,690+22,990+
Fargo-Valley City, ND DMA: 1 VHF analog FOX-affiliated
station that is a satellite of a Fargo station with city of
license in Thief River Falls, MN;
La Crosse-Eau Claire, WI
DMA: Winona, Houston
19,090+7,820=
148,160
La Crosse-Eau Claire, WI DMA: no station with city of
license in MN
New Orleans, LA DMA:
Pearl River, Hancock
18,960+18,040+
Memphis, TN DMA: De
Soto, Tunica, Coahoma,
Quitman, Panola, Tate,
Lafayette, Marshall,
Benton, Tippah, Alcorn
44,080+3,510+9,880+
3,400+12,680+9,270+
15,380+12,520+2,970+
8,130+14,500+
Memphis, TN DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in Holly Springs,
MS and 1 UHF analog noncommercial station transmitting
from Oxford, MS;
Mobile, AL-Pensacola-Fort
Walton Beach, FL DMA:
Greene
4,220+
Mobile, AL-Pensacola-Fort Walton Beach, FL DMA: no
station with city of license in MS;
Baton Rouge, LA DMA:
Wilkinson, Amite
3,590+5,270=
186,400
Baton Rouge, LA DMA: no station with city of license in
MS
7.59%
17.60%
Sioux Falls, SD DMA: 1 UHF analog noncommercial
station transmitting from Worthington, MN;
New Orleans, LA DMA: no station with city of license in
MS;
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Omaha, NE DMA:
Atchison
2,570+
8.64%
Omaha, NE DMA: no station with city of license in MO;
Jonesboro, AR DMA:
Ripley
5,250+
Jonesboro, AR DMA: no station with city of license in
MO;
Paducah, KY-Cape
Girardeau-Harrisburg,
MO-Mount Vernon, IL
DMA: Perry, Madison,
Bollinger, Cape Girardeau,
Carter, Wayne, Butler,
Stoddard, Scott,
Mississippi, New Madrid,
Dunklin, Pemiscot
7,020+4,710+
4,700+27,510+2,340+
5,730+16,790+12,120+
15,770+5,160+7,640+
13,100+7.670+
Paducah, KY-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg, MO-Mount
Vernon, IL DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital) FOX-affiliated
commercial station with city of license in Cape Girardeau,
MO, 1 (VHF analog and digital) CBS-affiliated commercial
station with city of license in Cape Girardeau, and 1 UHF
analog commercial station that is a satellite of a
Harrisburg, IL station with city of license in Poplar Bluff,
MO;
Quincy, IL-Hannibal, MOKeokuk, IA DMA: Clark,
Lewis, Marion, Ralls,
Monroe, Shelby, Knox,
2,950+4,040+11,000+
3,880+3,960+2,760+
1,760+
Quincy, IL-Hannibal, MO-Keokuk, IA DMA: 1 (VHF analog
and digital) CBS-affiliated commercial station with city of
license in Hannibal, IL
Ottumwa, IA-Kirksville,
MO DMA: Putnam,
Schuyler, Scotland, Sullivan,
Adair, Macon
2,260+1,670+1,830+
2,860+9,540+6,360=
192,950
Ottumwa, IA-Kirksville, MO DMA: no station with city of
license in MO
Spokane, WA DMA:
Lincoln
7,370+
Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson,
ND DMA: Sheridan,
Daniels, Roosevelt,
Richland, McCone, Wibaux
1,520+890+3,420+
3,750+780+390+
Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND DMA: no station with city
of license in MT;
Rapid City, SD DMA:
Carter
480=
18,600
Rapid City, SD DMA: no station with city of license in MT
DMA: County
Missouri
Montana
CRS-37
2,233,240
354,900
5.24%
Spokane, WA DMA: no station with city of license in MT;
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Denver, CO DMA:
Kimball, Cheyenne, Deuel,
Keith, Garden, Grant,
Hooker, Dawes, Box Butte
1,690+4,070+890+
3,620+980+290+290+
3,380+4,670+
12.53%
Denver, CO DMA: 1 (VHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Alliance, NE;
Wichita-Hutchinson, KS
DMA: Dundy
860+
Wichita-Hutchinson, KS DMA: no station with city of
license in NE:
Sioux Falls, SD DMA:
Cherry
2,420+
Sioux Falls, SD DMA: 1 (VHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Merriman, NE;
Sioux City, IA DMA:
Dakota, Thurston, Dixon,
Cedar, Wayne, Stanton,
Knox, Pierce, Madison
7,270+2,190+2,380+
3,580+3,380+2,280+
3,700+2,880+13,450+
Sioux City, IA DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Norfolk, NE;
Rapid City, SD DMA:
Sioux, Sheridan, Morrill,
Banner
590+2,460+2,070+
300+
Rapid City, SD DMA: no station with city of license in NE;
Cheyenne, WY-Scottsbluff,
NE DMA: Scottsbluff
14,870=
84,560
Cheyenne, WY-Scottsbluff, NE DMA: 1 (VHF analog and
digital) ABC-affiliated commercial station with city of
license in Hay Springs, NE and 1 (VHF analog and digital)
CBS-affiliated commercial station that is a satellite of a
Cheyenne station with city of license in Scottsbluff, NE
Salt Lake City, UT DMA:
Elko, Eureka, White Pine
15,390+560+2,730=
18,680
DMA: County
Nebraska
Nevada
CRS-38
675,030
833,960
2.24%
Salt Lake City, UT DMA: 1 VHF analog NBC-affiliated
commercial station with city of license in Elko
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Portland-Auburn, ME
DMA: Coos, Carroll
14,090+19,150+
100.00%
Portland-Auburn, ME DMA: no station with city of license
in NH;
Burlington, VT-Plattsburgh,
NY DMA: Grafton, Sullivan
32,570+16,910+
Burlington, VT-Plattsburgh, NY DMA: 1 (UHF analog and
digital) noncommercial station transmitting from Littleton,
NH;
Boston, MA-Manchester,
NH DMA: Cheshire,
Hillsborough, Belknap,
Merrimack, Strafford,
Rockingham
28,940+151,430+
24,310+55,020+44,910+110,820=
498,150
Boston, MA-Manchester, NH DMA: 1 (VHF analog and
digital) ABC-affiliated commercial station with city of
license in Manchester, NH, 1 (UHF analog and digital)
Telemundo-affiliated station with city of license in
Merrimack, NH, 1 (UHF analog and digital) commercial
station with city of license in Derry, NH, 1 UHF analog
commercial satellite of a Boston station with city of
license in Concord, NH, 1 (VHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Durham, NH,
and 1 (UHF analog and digital) noncommercial station
transmitting from Keene, NH
New York City, NY DMA:
Sussex, Passaic, Bergen,
Warren, Morris, Essex,
Hunterdon, Somerset,
Union, Middlesex,
Monmouth, Ocean,
Hudson
53,440+162,910+
337,120+40,540+
177,670+283,930+
45,890+114,650+
187,390+274,310+
233,080+210,890+
235,700+
DMA: County
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
CRS-39
498,150
3,149,060
100.00%
New York City, NY DMA: 1 UHF analog Telefuturaaffiliated station with city of license in Newark, NJ, 1
(UHF analog and digital) Univision-affiliated station with
city of license in Paterson, NJ, 1 UHF analog Telemundoaffiliated station with city of license in Linden, NJ, 1 VHF
analog commercial station with city of license in Secaucus,
NJ, 1 (UHF analog and digital) commercial station with
city of license in Newton, NJ, 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Montclair, NJ, 1
(UHF analog and digital) noncommercial station
transmitting from West Milford, NJ, 1 UHF analog
noncommercial station transmitting from New Brunswick,
and 1 digital noncommercial station transmitting from
New York
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
DMA: County
New Mexico
New York
CRS-40
685,270
7,025,170
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Philadelphia, PA DMA:
Burlington, Camden,
Gloucester, Salem,
Cumberland, Atlantic,
Cape May, Mercer
162,600+188,460+
95,850+24,570+49,800+
97,320+43,090+
129,850=
3,149,060
Amarillo, TX DMA: Union,
Quay, Curry, Roosevelt
1,670+4,130+16,800+
6,470+
Odessa-Midland, TX DMA:
Lea South
1,770+
Odessa-Midland, TX DMA: no station with city of license
in NM;
El Paso, TX-Las Cruces,
NM DMA: Dona Ana
61,050=
91,890
El Paso, TX-Las Cruces, NM DMA: 1(UHF analog and
digital) Telemundo-affiliated commercial station with city
of license in Las Cruces, NM, and 1 (UHF analog and
digital) noncommercial station transmitting from Las
Cruces, NM
Burlington, VT-Plattsburgh,
NY DMA: Essex, Franklin,
Clinton
15,310+17.980+
29,880=
63,170
Philadelphia, PA DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
Telemundo-affiliated station with city of license in Atlantic
City, NJ, 1 UHF digital commercial station with city of
license in Atlantic City, NJ, 1 UHF analog Univisionaffiliated station with city of license in Vineland, NJ, 1 UHF
analog NBC-affiliated station with city of license in
Wildwood, NJ, 1 (UHF analog and digital) noncommercial
station transmitting from Camden, NJ, and 1 (UHF analog
and digital) noncommercial station transmitting from
Trenton, NJ
13.41%
0.90%
Amarillo, TC DMA: 1 (VHF analog and digital) ABCaffiliated commercial satellite of an Amarillo station with
city of license in Clovis, NM, and 1 (VHF analog and
digital) noncommercial station transmitting from Portales,
NM;
Burlington, VT-Plattsburgh, NY DMA: 1 (VHF analog and
digital) NBC-affiliated commercial station with city of
license in Plattsburgh, NY, and 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Plattsburgh, NY
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Atlanta, GA DMA: Clay
4,090+
12.71%
Atlanta, GA DMA: no station with city of license in NC;
Norfolk-PortsmouthNewport News, VA DMA:
Northampton, Hertford,
Gates, Camden,
Pasquotank, Currituck,
Perquimans, Chowan,
Dare
8,900+9,140+3,930+
2,870+13,250+7,480+
4,810+5,590+13,570+
Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News, VA DMA: 1 VHF
analog commercial station with city of license in Manteo,
NC;
Chattanooga, TN DMA:
Cherokee
10,610+
Chattanooga, TN DMA: no station with city of license in
NC;
Myrtle Beach-Florence, SC
DMA: Robeson, Scotland
44,720+13,680+
Myrtle Beach-Florence, SC DMA: 1 (UHF analog and
digital) noncommercial station transmitting from
Lumberton, NC;
Greenville-SpartanburgAnderson, SC-Asheville,
NC DMA: Graham, Swain,
Haywood, Madison,
Yancey, Mitchell,
McDowell, Buncombe,
Macon, Jackson,
Transylvania, Henderson,
Polk, Rutherford
3,440+5,340+24,160+
8,480+7,410+6,960+
17,360+87,600+13,270+
14,230+13,050+
39,600+8,220+25,930=
417,690
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC-Asheville, NC
DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital) commercial station with
city of license in Asheville, NC, and 1 (UHF analog and
digital) noncommercial station transmitting from Asheville,
NC
DMA: County
North
Carolina
3,285,010
North
Dakota
253,780
none
0
0.00%
Ohio
4,506,760
Charleston-Huntington,
WV DMA: Athens, Meigs,
Vinton, Jackson, Gallia,
Lawrence, Scioto
22,330+
9,280+4,940+12,650+
11,960+24,970+
30,380+
5.24%
CRS-41
Charleston-Huntington, WV DMA: 1 (UHF analog and
digital) commercial station with city of license in
Portsmouth, OH, 1 UHF analog noncommercial station
transmitting from Portsmouth, OH, and 1 (UHF analog
and digital) noncommercial station transmitting from
Athens, OH;
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
DMA: County
Oklahoma
CRS-42
1,358,210
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Fort Wayne, IN DMA:
Paulding, Van Wert
7,900+11,550+
Fort Wayne, IN DMA: no station with city of license in
OH;
Parkersburg, WV DMA:
Washington
25,270+
Parkersburg DMA: no station with city of license in OH:
Wheeling, WVSteubenville, OH DMA:
Noble, Monroe, Belmont,
Jefferson, Harrison
4,590+6,060+27,870+
30,010+6,440=
236,200
Wheeling, WV-Steubenville, OH DMA: 1 (VHF analog and
digital) NBC-affiliated commercial station with city of
license in Steubenville, OH
Shreveport, LA DMA:
McCurtain
12,990+
Fort Smith-Fayetteville,
Springdale-Rogers, AR
DMA: Sequoyah, Le Flore,
14,900+17,820+
Fort Smith-Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR DMA: no
station with city of license in OK;
Amarillo, TX DMA:
Cimarron, Texas, Beaver
1,250+7,090+2,060+
Amarillo, TX DMA: no station with city of license in OK;
Joplin, MO-Pittsburg, KS
DMA: Ottawa
12,880+
Joplin, MO-Pittsburg, KS DMA: no station with city of
license in OK;
Wichita Falls, TX-Lawton,
OK DMA: Jackson,
Tillman, Cotton,
Comanche , Stephens,
Jefferson
10,090+
3,450+2,680+39,360+
17,090+2,650+
Wichita Falls, TX-Lawton, OK DMA: 1 VHF analog ABCaffiliated commercial station with city of license in Lawton,
OK;
Sherman, TX-Ada, OK
DMA: Carter, Love,
Marshall, Johnston,
Pontotoc, Coal, Atoka,
Bryan, Choctaw,
Pushmataha
17,950+3,420+
5,510+4,030+13,970+
2,360+5,000+14,610+
6,080+4,540=
221,780
Sherman, TX-Ada, OK DMA: 1 (VHF analog and digital)
NBC-affiliated commercial station with city of license in
Ada, OK
16.33%
Shreveport, LA DMA: no station with city of license in
OK;
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Spokane, WA DMA:
Wallowa
2,910+
3.05%
Spokane, WA DMA: no station with city of license in OR;
Boise, ID DMA: Malheur,
Grant
10,350+3,040+
Boise, ID DMA: no station with city of license in OR:
Yakima-Pasco-RichlandKennewick, WA DMA:
Umatilla
25,040=
41,340
Yakima-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick, WA DMA: 1 VHF
analog FOX-affiliated commercial station with city of
license in Pendleton, OR
New York City, NY DMA:
Pike
18,980+
Washington, DC DMA:
Franklin, Fulton,
50,260+5,510+
Washington, DC DMA: no station with city of license in
PA;
Buffalo, NY DMA:
McKean, Potter,
17,660+6,890+
Buffalo, NY DMA: no station with city of license in PA;
Youngstown, OH DMA:
Mercer
46,010+
Youngstown, OH DMA: no station with city of license in
PA;
Elmira, NY DMA: Tioga
15,900=
161,210
Elmira, NY DMA: no station with city of license in PA
DMA: County
Oregon
Pennsylvania
1,353,190
4,801,400
3.36%
New York City, NY DMA: no station with city of license
in PA;
Rhode Island
423,690
none
0
0.00%
none
South
Carolina
1,604,820
Charlotte, NC DMA:
York, Chester, Lancaster,
Chesterfield
65,870+13,070+
24,050+17,380+
17.19%
Charlotte, NC DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in Rock Hill, SC,
and 1 UHF analog noncommercial station transmitting
from Rock Hill, SC;
Savannah, GA DMA:
Hampton, Jasper, Beaufort
7,640+7,320+50,010+
Savannah, GA DMA: 1 UHF analog FOX-affiliated
commercial station with city of license in Hardeeville, SC,
and 1 UHF analog noncommercial station transmitting
from Beaufort, SC;
Augusta, GA DMA:
McCormick, Edgefield,
Aiken, Barnwell, Bamberg,
Allendale
3,720+9,070+58,530+
9,320+6,120+3,830=
275,930
Augusta, GA DMA: 1 UHF analog noncommercial station
transmitting from Allendale, SC
CRS-43
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Sioux City, IA DMA: Union
5,040+
2.15%
Sioux City, IA DMA: no station with city of license in SD;
Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson,
ND DMA: Corson
1,260=
6,300
Paducah, KY-Cape
Girardeau-Harrisburg,
MO-Mount Vernon, IL
DMA: Lake, Obion,
Weakley
2,260+13,330+13,810+
Huntsville-Decatur, AL
DMA: Lincoln
12,820=
42,220
DMA: County
South Dakota
Tennessee
293,510
2,297,620
Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson, ND DMA: no station with city
of license in SD
1.84%
Paducah, KY-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg, MO-Mount
Vernon, IL DMA: no station with city of license in TN;
Huntsville-Decatur, AL DMA: no station with city of
license in TN;
Texas
7,807,130
Shreveport, LA DMA:
Bowie, Morris, Marion,
Harrison, Panola, Shelby,
Cass, Titus
34,600+5,190+4,730+
24,370+8,810+9,680+
12,160+9,670 =
109,210
1.40%
Shreveport, LA DMA: no station with city of license in TX
Utah
731,730
none
0
0.00%
none
Vermont
243,040
Boston, MA-Manchester,
NH DMA: Windham
17,770+
13.42%
Boston, MA-Manchester, NH DMA: no station with city
of license in VT;
Albany-Schenectady-Troy,
NY DMA: Bennington
14,850=
32,6200
Washington, DC DMA:
Arlington, Fairfax,
Loudoun, Clarke,
Frederick Warren,
Shenandoah, Page,
Rappahannock, Culpeper,
Fauquier, Prince William,
Stafford, Spottsylvania,
King George,
Westmoreland
151,730+381,000+
75,480+5,150+34,670+
12,650+14,860+9,440+
2,660+12,870+21,500+
122,650+34,040+44,100+
6,460+6,870+
Virginia
CRS-44
2,824,170
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY DMA: no station with city
of license in VT
38.26%
Washington, DC DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in Manassas, VA, 1
UHF analog Telefutura-affiliated commercial station with
city of license in Arlington, VA, 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Front Royal, VA,
1 UHF analog noncommercial station transmitting from
Fairfax, VA, and 1 UHF analog noncommercial station
transmitting from Goldvein, VA
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
DMA: County
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Raleigh-Durham, NC
DMA: Mecklenburg,
13,600+
Raleigh-Durham, NC DMA: no station with city of license
in VA;
Greensboro-High PointWinston Salem, NC DMA:
Patrick
8,340+
Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem NC DMA: no
station with city of license in VA;
Bluefield, Beckley-Oak Hill,
WV DMA: Tazewell
17,870+
Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill, WV DMA: no station with city
of license in VA
Tri-Cities (KingsportJohnson City, TN-Bristol,
VA) DMA: Buchanon,
Dickinson, Lee, Russell,
Scott, Smyth, Washington,
Wise
9,980+6,700+9,630+
11,710+9,950+13,670+
29,390+18,310=
1,080,640
Tri-Cities (Kingsport-Johnson City, TN-Bristol, VA) DMA:
1 VHF analog and digital) NBC-affiliated commercial
station with city of license in Bristol, VA, 1 UHF analog
commercial station with city of license in Grundy, VA, 1
(UHF analog and digital) noncommercial station
transmitted from Marion, VA, and 1 (UHF analog and
digital) noncommercial station transmitted from Norton,
VA
(independent cities outside
the jurisdiction of any
county, such as Alexandria
and Manassas, are assigned
to a neighboring county
within the same DMA)
Washington
CRS-45
2,306,020
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Portland, OR DMA:
Wahkiakum, Cowlitz,
Clark, Skamania, Klickitat
1,500+35,940+134,260+
3,470+7,340=
182,510
7.92%
Portland, OR DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in Vancouver, WA
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Washington, DC DMA:
Jefferson, Berkeley,
Morgan, Hampshire,
Mineral, Grant, Hardy
17,170+31,880+
6,390+7,610+10,450+
4,370+5,260+
18.00%
Washington, DC DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
commercial station with city of license in Martinsburg,
WV;
Pittsburgh, PA DMA:
Monongalia, Preston
34,290+11,390+
Pittsburgh, PA DMA: 1 (UHF analog and digital)
noncommercial station transmitting from Morgantown,
WV;
Harrisonburg, VA DMA:
Pendleton
3,150=
131,960
Harrisonburg, VA DMA: no station with city of license in
WV
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
DMA: Burnett, Washburn,
Polk, Barron, St. Croix,
Dunn, Pierce
6,800+6,870+17,230+
18,160+25,950+15,020+13,660+
Marquette, MI DMA:
Florence
2,170+
Marquette, MI DMA: no station with city of license in WI;
Duluth, MN-Superior, WI
DMA: Sawyer, Douglas,
Bayfield, Ashland, Iron
6,700+18,020+6,180+
6,570+3,170=
146,500
Duluth, MN-Superior, WI DMA: 1 (VHF analog and
digital) NBC-affiliated commercial station with city of
license in Superior, WI
Denver, CO DMA:
Carbon, Albany, Platte,
Niobrara, Johnson,
Campbell
5,900+12,470+3,660+
940+3,150+13,340+
Salt Lake City, UT DMA:
Sublette, Lincoln, Uinta,
Sweetwater
2,420+5,550+
6,870+13,360+
Salt Lake City, UT DMA: 1 VHF analog CBS-affiliated
station (a satellite of a Casper, WY station) with city of
license in Rock Springs, WY;
Idaho Falls-Pocatello, ID
DMA: Teton
8,150+
Idaho Falls-Pocatello, ID DMA: 1 VHF analog NBCaffiliated commercial station (a satellite of a Pocatello, ID
station) with city of license in Jackson, WY, and 1 VHF
analog commercial station with city of license in Jackson,
WY;
DMA: County
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
CRS-46
733,120
2,148,430
195,370
6.82%
54.55%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN DMA: 1 UHF analog
noncommercial station transmitting from Menomonie,
WI;
Denver, CO DMA: 1 VHF analog ABC-affiliated
commercial station (a satellite of a Casper, WY station)
with city of license in Rawlins, WY;
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
State
# TV
households
Counties in DMAs for
which primary city is
outside the state
# TV households in DMAs for
which primary city is outside
the state
DMA: County
% of TV
households in
DMAs for which
primary city is
outside the state
Currently operating full power broadcast TV
stations in DMAs for which primary city is outside
the state
Billings, MT DMA: Park,
Big Horn
10,420+4,130+
Billings, MT DMA: no station with city of license in WY;
Rapid City, SD DMA:
Sheridan, Crook, Weston
11,310+2,280+2,620=
106,570
Rapid City, SD DMA: 1 (VHF analog and digital) ABCaffiliated commercial satellite of a Rapid City, SD station
with city of license in Sheridan, WY, and 1 VHF analog
commercial station with city of license in Sheridan WY
Sources: Nielsen Media Research, U.S. Television Household Estimates, September 2003, for data on the number of television households in each county and the DMAs to
which each county is assigned; Warren Communications News, Television & Cable Factbook 2004, for data on the city of license and DMA of each commercial broadcast
television station and the transmitting location of each noncommercial broadcast television station.
CRS-47
“Localism”: Statutes and Rules Affecting Local Programming
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
48
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.