Comment Not sure this will make much of a difference (Score 1) 82
It's quite expensive to operate broadcast TV stations because they're designed to keep the barriers to access to their programming very low. No subscriptions or intermediate distribution networks between the licensed transmitter and the consumer...just some cheap and easy to find commodity hardware. At least, that was how TV used to be.
ATSC screwed that up in the US. The transition was huge bungle at a time when internet bandwidth was about on-par for the purpose of delivering video content. These days a cell phone gets you more entertainment than the combined programming of all broadcasters in a market and everyone has a phone/tablet...part of the cost of living in the modern world.
Allowing large collections of TV licenses to be held is, in this day, a leveling of the playing field from my point of view. We've had DirecTV and Dish, Comcast and Cox, all national footprint content distributors, for decades now. I don't see much of a difference between a Comcast and a Sinclair anymore.
If you wanted to really be fair, you'd subject companies that hold more than a certain national percentage of broadcast licenses to the same standards that are applied to a common communications carrier, maybe?