Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 119 posts

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#21

Post by walrus01 »

trollbridge wrote: post #7

Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today. In exchange, we have a great deal of spectrum tied up for terrestrial TV, much of which goes to running infomercials or else is surreptitiously leased for terrestrial data…

> Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable,

It's not that people are literally watching these on over the air digital TV antenna systems, but that if you have a "Broadcast TV" station in a certain market, it becomes carried by default on cable systems, direct to home satellite satellite dish systems, and regional FTTH providers' last-mile cable-tv-equivalent products.

Look at for example how all the Seattle TV stations are carried on Comcast or Astound's networks.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#22

Post by s0ss »

freediddy wrote: post #10

I haven't watched broadcast TV in over a decade, except for live sports. I also haven't listened to broadcast radio in even longer. My teenage children don't know how to use the TV or radio. It's like someone telling me a company has a monopoly on the telephone lines; nostalgic for me but utterly useless in 2026.

most people aren't hn readers. broadcast tv is far from useless in 2026, that's how many normies watch tv.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#23

Post by jyoung8607 »

wmf wrote: post #11
trollbridge wrote: post #7

Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today. In exchange, we have a great deal of spectrum tied up for terrestrial TV, much of which goes to running infomercials or else is surreptitiously leased for terrestrial data…

I heard in some European countries they packed digital SD channels into less spectrum (one 6 MHz channel can carry 4-5 TV channels). We should have done that here instead of broadcasting HD.

That's already widely done in the US.

If you plug in an antenna and scan for local channels, what used to be one analog TV channel on colloquially-named "channel 7" in the defined channel 7 frequency range will now be seen as "channel 7-1" which is often (but not always!) actually broadcast on the old frequency. During the ATSC transition, it was important to retain the branding and consumer memory of "channel 7" even when the RF transport frequency changed.

The transition opened the ability to have an arbitrary number of digital subchannels, 7-2, 7-3, etc etc. The total bitrate available on a given ATSC broadcast is fixed, but it can be partitioned among multiple MPEG streams. The typical setup is one (occasional two) HD channels and several SD channels. Obviously there's a balancing act between bitrate and visual quality for each subchannel. It's often used as a way to broadcast older (read: cheaper) syndicated SD content on which they can run more ads while keeping the main HD channel quality reasonably acceptable.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#24

Post by wmf »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #18
wmf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard in some European countries they packed digital SD channels into less spectrum (one 6 MHz channel can carry 4-5 TV channels). We should have done that here instead of broadcasting HD.

Here in the US I get PBS on Channel 10 - there's 10.1 (straight PBS), 10.2 (PBS-World) and 10.3 (PBS kids) - do each of these take a separate 6MHz bandwidth, or are they packed into that single 6MHz bandwidth like in Europe?

Yeah, that's one channel. IMO it's wasteful to give PBS an entire 6 MHz.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#25

Post by Animats »

wmf wrote: post #24
UncleOxidant wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in the US I get PBS on Channel 10 - there's 10.1 (straight PBS), 10.2 (PBS-World) and 10.3 (PBS kids) - do each of these take a separate 6MHz bandwidth, or are they packed into that single 6MHz bandwidth like in Europe?

Yeah, that's one channel. IMO it's wasteful to give PBS an entire 6 MHz.

ESPN, however, demands that they get the full 6 MHz.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#26

Post by magicalist »

Note that Tom Delay of all people (remember that guy? I'm old and I'd say barely) wrote an opposing op ed saying that even though he supports the change that this is contrary to the governing statute that he helped write, which explicitly bars the FCC from changing this limit

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/can-trump-fcc-re...

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#27

Post by Animats »

walrus01 wrote: post #21
trollbridge wrote: post #7

Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today. In exchange, we have a great deal of spectrum tied up for terrestrial TV, much of which goes to running infomercials or else is surreptitiously leased for terrestrial data…

> Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, It's not that people are literally watching these on over the air digital TV antenna systems, but that if you have a "Broadcast TV" station in a certain market, it becomes carried by default on cable systems, direct to home satellite satellite dish systems, and regional FTTH providers' last…

Amusingly, there are streaming sites you can't watch without permission from your "television provider".

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#28

Post by wmf »

jyoung8607 wrote: post #23
wmf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard in some European countries they packed digital SD channels into less spectrum (one 6 MHz channel can carry 4-5 TV channels). We should have done that here instead of broadcasting HD.

That's already widely done in the US. If you plug in an antenna and scan for local channels, what used to be one analog TV channel on colloquially-named "channel 7" in the defined channel 7 frequency range will now be seen as "channel 7-1" which is often (but not always!) actually broadcast on the old frequency. During the ATSC transition, it was important to retain the branding and consumer memory of "channel 7" eve…

That's not what I'm talking about though. We should have repacked ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox onto a single channel.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#29

Post by [deleted] »

wmf wrote: post #11
trollbridge wrote: post #7

Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today. In exchange, we have a great deal of spectrum tied up for terrestrial TV, much of which goes to running infomercials or else is surreptitiously leased for terrestrial data…

I heard in some European countries they packed digital SD channels into less spectrum (one 6 MHz channel can carry 4-5 TV channels). We should have done that here instead of broadcasting HD.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN