Twenty years ago, USDTV was a clever idea ahead of its time — today, it may be exactly what NextGen TV needs to break through.

The old characterization of broadcasting as a “license to print money” feels increasingly anachronistic. What remains is a business in stewardship mode — focused less on building for the future than on managing through a prolonged unwinding.

As networks invest less in certain dayparts, affiliates are left to ask a more pointed question about what, exactly, they are receiving in return.

NBC is taking a meaningful swing at the core idea of what a “national-meets-local” sports broadcast should look like — and, in the process, signaling where sports television may be headed next.

The combined Nexstar-TEGNA now has to prove that a vastly larger footprint can translate into sustainable economics in a shrinking linear TV ecosystem — without triggering backlash from regulators, distributors, or local markets.

The current administration’s political pressure against aimed at television journalism is real. But the regulatory system governing broadcast licenses has evolved in ways that make rapid, politically driven punishment extraordinarily difficult.

The recent surge of games returning to broadcast television may represent something closer to a transitional solution than a permanent one.

Is Indianapolis a narrow exception tailored to unique facts? Or is it an early indicator that triopolies — whether through ownership or ecosystem influence — are becoming normalized?

Video podcasts will not reverse cord-cutting or restore the economics of peak syndication. But they may represent a pragmatic bridge between legacy linear TV and the conversational, multiplatform media environment that now defines viewer behavior.

TikTok’s local turn could become a powerful distribution partner for revitalized journalism. Or it could further platformize and fragment an already stressed ecosystem.

Sinclair’s Mark Aitken offers a rebuttal to Tim Hanlon’s recent column “Weigel Says The Quiet Part Out Loud” about ATSC 3.0

For much of the industry, the primary appeal of ATSC 3.0 is not better television. It is the ability to monetize broadcast spectrum for non-broadcast uses — even if that comes at the expense of free TV.

Boston’s fledgling LocalTV+ is a reminder that the long-standing promise of free broadcast television is increasingly at odds with how Americans actually watch TV — and with how the law treats modern distribution.

The sharp divide — between most large commercial station groups on one side and public broadcasters, multichannel pay-TV providers, and small station owners on the other — reveals a classic regulatory clash: who bears the cost of progress, and who stands to profit from it?

Disbanding the FCC would not usher in a neutral, market-driven utopia. It would privatize governance, weaken accountability, and accelerate the erosion of already fragile media institutions.

CPB functioned as a national stabilizer — negotiating rights, sharing infrastructure, smoothing disparities between rich and poor markets. Without it, public media begins to resemble the very commercial ecosystem it was designed to counterbalance.

Stations that once relied on PBS for national programming, interconnection infrastructure, and brand recognition now face three unattractive options: raise unprecedented levels of private funding, dramatically scale back operations, or reinvent themselves entirely.

The CW risks becoming a network whose primary purpose is to serve the strategic and financial interests of its parent companies — not the needs of viewers, creators, or its local affiliates.

The distinction between owned-and-operated stations (O&Os) and network affiliates has never been more consequential — and with the FCC signaling openness to loosening ownership rules, it may soon determine which stations thrive and which struggle.

Any implied or proposed Sinclair–Scripps merger runs headlong into the realities of the regulatory framework that exists today.