Must CarryEdit
Must Carry is a policy framework that mandates certain multichannel video programming distributors to carry local broadcast stations within their markets. Grounded in a long-standing commitment to local information ecosystems, the policy aims to guarantee that communities have access to essential local news, public interest programming, and timely emergency information. By anchoring distribution in local stations, it preserves a basic level of pluralism in a media landscape that has grown increasingly dominated by a handful of large platforms. The approach applies a neutral rule to all eligible local broadcasters and is administered through federal and, in some respects, state regulatory structures. Federal Communications Commission cable television systems and other distributors must consider the local stations in their service areas, with rules that have evolved since their initial adoption to reflect changing technologies and markets. local programming and the public interest mandate sit at the center of the argument for must carry, even as the policy interacts with retransmission consent and broader market dynamics. Telecommunications Act of 1996 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
Background and policy framework
Origins and purpose
The idea behind must carry emerged from concerns that local broadcast stations might be crowded out in the era of expanding cable systems, potentially eroding residents’ access to local news, weather, and safety information. Proponents have long argued that localism—the principle that communities deserve a say in what information is available where they live—requires a policy that ensures local stations can reach the audience regardless of the distribution platform. This is especially important in smaller markets and in communities where a single broadcaster may play a pivotal role in public discourse. The obligation is designed to maintain a bedrock level of informational diversity and civic accountability. See also localism.
Legal framework
Must carry has been shaped by a combination of regulatory rules and court decisions. The initial regulatory framework was refined as the law and technology evolved, with key decisions affirming that the distribution mandate serves non-content-based aims (like ensuring access to local information) and thus can be upheld under constitutional standards applied to broadcast regulation. The Supreme Court’s handling of related issues, such as in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, helped define the balance between free expression, market access, and regulatory reach. In tandem, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and subsequent rulemaking clarified how must carry interacts with other mechanisms in the market, notably retransmission consent, which allows stations to negotiate terms (including compensation) with distributors while the must-carry option remains available in defined circumstances. The result is a framework that treats local broadcasters as carriers of the public interest rather than as mere content suppliers. See also Broadcasting and Retransmission consent.
Modern landscape and practical considerations
Today, must carry operates in a media environment that includes not only traditional cable and satellite platforms but also increasingly diverse delivery methods, including live streaming and over-the-top services. Advocates emphasize that the core value—ensuring access to reliable, locally relevant information—remains intact, even as technology reshapes how people watch. Critics, however, point to cost considerations for distributors and the potential slowdown of channel-switching innovation. In debates over policy design, the question often centers on how best to preserve localism while encouraging investment in new distribution models that deliver more choice to consumers. See also Cable television in the United States and Localism (media).
Controversies and debates
Support for must carry
Proponents argue that must carry protects communities by guaranteeing visibility for local stations that provide essential reporting on city and regional affairs, weather and public safety information, and locally produced programming. It helps ensure that households without premium service or those in rural or economically challenged areas still receive a baseline of information they need to participate in civic life. By maintaining a foothold for local broadcasters, the policy is seen as a bulwark against the potential dominance of national networks or a handful of large outlets that could otherwise crowd out diverse, community-centered content. See also local programming.
Criticisms and counterarguments
Opponents contend that must carry imposes costs on distributors, reduces consumer choice, and substitutes regulation for market-driven programming decisions. They argue that in a world of expanding channels and streaming options, distributers should be free to determine carriage based on viewership and market demand rather than obligation. Critics also warn that, in practice, must carry can enable local stations to extract retransmission fees or favorable terms from distributors, which can translate into higher prices for viewers or less incentive to innovate on delivery. The result, some say, is a distortion of competition and an implicit subsidy for legacy broadcasters. See also Retransmission consent.
Left-leaning critiques and why some view them as misguided
Some observers frame must carry within a broader critique of media power, suggesting that it preserves established voices at the expense of new entrants or minority perspectives. From a practical, market-oriented standpoint, however, the policy applies broadly to eligible local broadcasters regardless of political leaning, and it enshrines a standard of local accountability rather than ideological favoritism. Proponents argue that local stations of various editorial persuasions contribute to a healthier public sphere and that a broad base of local coverage improves democratic participation in diverse communities. Critics who treat must carry as a cudgel against any one viewpoint tend to overlook the policy’s neutral mechanics and its focus on local access and emergency information. And in the era of rapid media fragmentation, critics often miss the point that must carry is designed to secure a baseline level of local, verifiable information rather than to adjudicate content across the spectrum. The practical takeaway is that a local and transparent information environment serves all residents, not just those aligned with a single political stance. See also Emergency information.
Relevance in a changing media market
As households diversify their viewing habits and as streaming options proliferate, questions about the cost and reach of must carry become part of a larger discussion about how best to preserve a robust public information infrastructure. The policy is frequently reevaluated in light of new distribution technologies, the economic health of local broadcasters, and policy goals around universal access to critical information. See also Emergency information.
Economic and consumer effects
Costs to distributors and broadcasters
Must carry imposes concrete obligations on distributors, which can influence carriage decisions and licensing dynamics. In some cases, these obligations translate into higher operating costs for providers and may affect pricing structures for consumers. Supporters emphasize that these costs are a reasonable investment in local information networks and public safety infrastructure. See also Cable television.
Benefits to consumers and communities
For many viewers, must carry helps ensure that local stations remain available, particularly in markets where alternative sources of local news are limited. The policy undergirds emergency alert systems and provides a direct line to local civic life, which benefits households, schools, small businesses, and public institutions. See also Local programming.