Yep, that was my point. The rights the locals have are covered under contract law and not constitutional law.
All laws must be constitutional.
This is proven over and over when a certain station loses its right to broadcast a certain network, to have it granted to another station by the network. A good example of this is the KRON and NBC issue we were discussinjg in the Young Broadcasting thread. KRON didn't want to play by the rules set by NBC and thus lost its rebroadcast rights for San Francisco.
Yet folks in SF still cannot receive the distant signals. What was the point again?
The networks could eliminate eliminate broadcast exclusivity in a heartbeat if they chose, simply by not renewing these contracts, or renewing them on a non-exclusive basis. Yes, the NAB would be upset and you would hear a giant stink, but that is a civil matter, not legislative.
But the networks are not doing it, they still embrace the current business model. What then becomes a legal or legislative issue is if a satelilte company violates such exclusive rights.
I know that. I just don't follow the giant leap of logic you make in defining this as a constitutional issue. Broadcast exclusivity isn't even a federal statute. The only statute I know of is the SHVIA which specifically allows the satellite providers to serve unserved households above and beyond the contracts and also to carry local stations if they follow the CONTRACT terms granted to the affiliates. SHVIA basically defines statutaory limitations to the contracts.
Only because NAB agreed to it. A law can be in place even if it may not pass a legal challenge, if no one is there to challenge it. But when a law is challenged, it is always challenged on constitutional ground, though in reality a specific statute may be the basis for such challenge, but all laws must be constitutional if challenged, otherwise the law will be struck down.
The current network/affilliate business model is embraced by the Copyright Law. The Congress cannot establish a new law to invalidate such business arrangement unless the new law can survive NAB's legal challenge.
It is a legal issue more so than a political issue, if you refuse to accept it, you will just keep whining about it and never get it your way. It is popular to point fingers at the politicians, and blame it all on our system, if that makes people feel better, so be it, just remember you still cannot get the distant signals if the networks and the affilliates do not want to give them to you that way.
They own the content, and have the right to decide how you may receive their content. No one is forcing you to even receive such content, some people don't watch TV, they don't have such issue then.
Where is the constitutional issue here? States' rights? I just don't see any constitutional precedent that protects such a regional monopoly. Yes, there are laws and FCC rulings that protect the affiliates, but laws and rules can be changed by congress through simple legislation. Show me where the founding fathers foresaw broadcast exclusivity
