I disagree. 250+ cable channels, 90% of which owned by 6 corporations. Overall prices up 4 times more than inflation. Local channel retrans is part of the whole.
I could be wrong. I just don't recall a whole lot of issues with channels other than locals. There have been a few, but nothing like the fights involving locals.
Would the others be nastier w/o the locals for leverage? I guess it's possible. I would certainly be willing to find out.
Case in point, Tribune would have very little leverage for WGNA w/o tying it to locals. It'd be priced based on the value of the content only, not inflated because of the need for a retran agreement on the locals.
Would I like to see more diversity of ownership? Sure. But forcing it via government power is not the answer.
I'd like to see a free market. Truly free, not the pseudo "free" mess we've had for the last 100 years (less and less free every month as new regulations are enacted). The regulations today are a barrier to entry for new competition. They protect the established/status quo. And the latest turn is to impose regulations on new products over the last 9 yrs but not products that existed prior to then.
I don't mid if company X buys channel Y, whether they own 2 others or 20 others.
What I mind is the regulatory burden that prevents channels D, E, F, and G for ever getting off the ground.
Broadcast stations were a special case due to the use of the public airwave, but even that hasn't kept up with modern technical changes. The rules are based on antiquated technology instead of whats possible today. The rules need to be total rewritten, ignoring what was done how in the past, and instead what makes sense today.