Superstation

===Distant signal regulation and conflicts===
During the 1960s, the FCC began to severely restrict the importation of distant signals by larger CATV and cable systems, limiting their distribution to smaller-market and rural systems, based in part on the framework of the 1963 ''Carter Mountain Transmission Corp. v. FCC'' case, which stemmed from a legal challenge by Chief Washakie TV, then-owner of KWRB-TV (channel 10, now KFNE and operating a satellite station of [[Casper, Wyoming|Casper]] Fox affiliate [[KLWY]]) in [[Riverton, Wyoming]], against the FCC license of [[Cody, Wyoming|Cody]]-based microwave relay firm Carter Mountain Transmission Corp., which intended to relay the signal of CBS/NBC affiliate [[KTWO-TV]] (channel 2) in Casper, Wyoming to CATV systems in three cities that were within the range of KWRB's off-air signal: Riverton, [[Lander, Wyoming|Lander]] and [[Thermopolis, Wyoming|Thermopolis]]. The FCC's denial of Carter's license renewal—because of its refusal to guarantee KWRB program duplication protection and the harm it would induce to the station, especially given Carter's refusal to offer the KWRB signal—was affirmed in a unanimous, three-judge decision by the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia]] on May 24, 1963, and a consideration refusal on the case by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] on December 19.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=FCC grants five microwave protests|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=85|date=May 23, 1960}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Microwave Denial Cites Economics|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=126–127|date=February 19, 1962}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=FCC Upheld in CATV Case|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=64|date=May 27, 1963}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=High Court Backs FCC|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=60|date=December 23, 1963}}</ref>

Further expansion of "proto-superstation" signals came through federal court rulings on separate lawsuits filed in July 1961 by [[United Artists]] and WSTV Inc. (then-owner of WSTV [channel 9, now [[WTOV-TV]]] in [[Steubenville, Ohio]]) over [[Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.|Fortnightly Corp.'s importation of television stations]] from the [[Pittsburgh|Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]] and [[Wheeling, West Virginia]]–Steubenville, Ohio markets to its [[Fairmont, West Virginia|Fairmont]] and [[Clarksburg, West Virginia]] systems and in December 1964 by CBS (over [[TelePrompTer]]'s importation of stations from New York City, [[Albuquerque|Albuquerque, New Mexico]], [[Billings, Montana]] and [[Denver|Denver, Colorado]] to its systems in [[Elmira, New York]], [[Johnstown, Pennsylvania]] and [[Farmington, New Mexico]]).<ref>{{cite magazine|title=At Deadline: WSTV Inc. challenges CATV use of signal|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=9|date=July 10, 1961}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=CBS files suit on CATV copyright clearance|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=9|date=December 14, 1964}}</ref> In the former case, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5–1 vote on June 18, 1968, that CATV systems like Fortnightly did not incur copyright liability by retransmitting distant signals as they acted more akin to "viewers" than broadcasters;<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Is CATVs future in FCC's hands?|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=19–22|date=June 24, 1968}}</ref> the latter case, ruled on May 2, 1972, by Judge [[Constance Baker Motley]] of the [[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York]], affirmed that stance based on the Supreme Court's framework on the ''Fortnightly v. United Artists'' case.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=All signals, local or far, up for grabs by CATV's|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=19–20|date=May 8, 1972}}</ref>

On March 31, 1972, the FCC implemented a broad package of cable industry regulations passed that February, which included two rules pertaining to distant signal importation. Among the implemented rules was the original incarnation of the [[Syndication exclusivity|Syndication Exclusivity Rules]] (or "SyndEx"), which required cable providers to [[Blackout (broadcasting)|black out]] any syndicated programs carried on out-of-market stations if a television station exclusively holds the local broadcast rights to a particular program, even if the out-of-market station has the same owner as the program's claimant station. The main difference between the original Syndex law and the version enacted in 1988 was that the blackout provisions applied to almost all programming, including special event programs distributed through syndication (such as the ''[[Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon]]'' and the ''[[Easterseals (U.S.)|Easter Seals]] Telethon''). The distant signal regulations allowed cable systems in the 100 largest markets to carry imported signals as a matter of right (including the addition of two distant signals not already available in the market), restricted cable systems in smaller markets to only being able to carry three network stations and one independent station (except for undefinable markets that would not be limited in the number of carried imported signals), and instituted leapfrogging rules that required systems importing distant independent stations from the top-25 markets to choose from one or both of the two markets closest to the provider's [[city of license]] and any systems carrying the signal of a third independent being required to pick up a UHF or, if such a station is not available, VHF station located within a {{convert|200|mi|km|adj=on}} radius.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=The FCC delivers on cable|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=17, 18, 40, 44|date=February 7, 1972}}</ref> This interpretation of the rules became increasingly difficult to enforce as the number of cable-originated services increased, particularly following the emergence of communications satellites as a distribution method to the cable industry beginning in 1975.

FCC soon began outlining a regulatory framework that allowed cable systems to import some out-of-market signals without running into copyright liability. In August 1975, the agency began allowing unlimited signal importation upon either the final daily [[sign-off]] of a local "[[must carry]]" station or starting at 1:00&nbsp;a.m. ([[Eastern Time Zone|Eastern]] and [[Pacific Time Zone|Pacific Time]])/12:00&nbsp;a.m. (in all other time zones), to avoid programming conflicts with late-night programing being carried "in progress" or avoid instances in which systems would have to run a blank screen until the start of the next program. As such, the distant signal would act as a timeshare feed on a cable channel otherwise occupied by a local or out-of-market broadcast station during the occupying station's normal sign-off period.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=In Brief|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=30|date=August 25, 1975}}</ref> The last major obstacle to the creation of a national superstation was knocked down on December 19, 1975, when the FCC unanimously voted to repeal a 1972 rule requiring cable systems selecting a distant signal from among television stations in the top-25 media markets to only select a station from one of the two closest markets to the licensed system. The FCC Cable Television Bureau contended the formation of superstations was unlikely due to the absence of evidence that television stations economically benefited from cable carriage.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Cable gets boost with deletion of leapfrogging rule|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=23|date=December 22, 1975}}</ref>

On October 1, 1976, the U.S. Congress unanimously passed the [[Copyright Act of 1976]] in separate Senate [[Voting methods in deliberative assemblies|floor]] and House [[voice vote]]s. The law provides cable systems with a compulsory license – which, under Section 111, also applies to "passive" (passthrough) satellite carriers, allowing them to retransmit "copyrighted programming from any over-the-air [television and radio] stations across the country [or, with range restrictions based on their distance from the U.S. border, from Canada or Mexico]" without seeking the originating station's express permission – that requires payment of a flat semi-annual royalty fee based both on the number of distant signals retransmitted by the system and on their total subscriber receipts (0.675% of their gross receipts for the first distant signal, 0.425% for any other signal up to the fourth and 0.2% for each signal beyond the fourth, with a separate fixed-rate exemptions for systems that have a semi-annual revenue either below $80,000 or between $80,000 and $160,000), prohibits any modifications to the imported broadcast signal and its copyrighted content (such as commercials substituted by the cable system, permitting local broadcast stations to sue the systems if violating modifications are made), and established the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, a five-member commission of the [[U.S. Copyright Office]] that is tasked with reviewing cable and other royalty rates every five years (or sooner, if changes to program exclusivity or signal importation rules are made by the FCC) and compensates eligible owners of a copyrighted program who submit a written claim to receive the mandatory royalty paid by the cable system.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Copyright is out of Congress|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=24–25|date=October 4, 1976}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Title 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights: PART 256—ADJUSTMENT OF ROYALTY FEE FOR CABLE COMPULSORY LICENSE|url=http://www.copyright.gov/title37/258.html|website=[[United States Copyright Office]]|access-date=January 11, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140527220711/http://www.copyright.gov/title37/258.html|archive-date=May 27, 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Rate Adjustment for Satellite Carrier Compulsory License|url=http://www.copyright.gov/history/mls/ML-574.pdf|website=United States Copyright Office|access-date=January 11, 2015}}</ref> Compulsory license rules for broadcast signal distribution were extended to the home satellite industry on October 21, 1988, through the passage of [[Satellite Home Viewer Act|Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988]], which also restricted access to network programs exclusively to home dish users in "white areas" where broadcast signals are unviewable via antenna or cable (a provision that would become pertinent to most of the remaining superstations following network launches that took place in 1995).<ref name="PassesTVRO">{{cite magazine|title=Congress, in overtime, passes TVRO, children's ad bills|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=26–28|date=October 24, 1988}}</ref>

The distribution of these superstations eventually caused conflicts between these stations and providers of similar, or identical, programming in local markets. Among the earliest opponents to the emergence of superstations was the [[Motion Picture Association of America]] (MPAA), which in 1977, with the growing distribution of WTCG, petitioned the FCC to investigate the impact of and regulate superstations amid concerns over the potential financial losses for programs that MPAA member companies distributed to other television stations, which it posited would not be offset by royalty payments by cable systems. (The MPAA, which had its inquiry petition backed by the [[National Association of Broadcasters]] [NAB] and broadcasting companies such as Kelly Broadcasting, [[McGraw-Hill|McGraw-Hill Broadcasting]] and [[Taft Broadcasting|Taft Television & Radio Company]], also lodged an unsuccessful bit to deny SSS's application to grant an expansion of WTCG's service to [[Puerto Rico]], [[Alaska]] and Canada.)<ref>{{cite magazine|title=MPAA out to stop WTCG-type spread via cable, satellite|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|page=20|date=August 29, 1977}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Battle lines form as expected on petition against super stations|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|page=40|date=October 24, 1977}}</ref>

On October 25, 1978, the FCC implemented an "open entry" policy for satellite resale carriers wanting to feed local television stations to cable systems, a move that would pave the way for the emergence of additional superstations. The policy also commenced review on FCC applications filed by four individual satellite carriers to authorize relay of other independent stations through the [[Satcom (satellite)|Satcom]] satellite fleet:<ref name="b&c-breakthrough"/>
* Southern Satellite Systems – seeking to carry [[KTTV]] (channel 11, now a Fox owned-and-operated station) in Los Angeles and WPIX (channel 11, now a CW affiliate) in New York City;<ref name="b&c-breakthrough"/><ref name="b&c-nextsuperstations"/>
* Satellite Communication Systems (a joint venture of [[Holiday Inn]]s and SSS) – seeking to relay KTVU in Oakland–San Francisco;<ref name="b&c-breakthrough"/><ref name="b&c-nextsuperstations"/>
* Eastern Microwave Inc. (a subsidiary of [[Advance Publications|Newhouse Newspapers]]) – seeking to relay WOR-TV (channel 9, now [[Secaucus, New Jersey]]-licensed MyNetworkTV owned-and-operated station [[WWOR-TV]]) in New York City and [[WSBK-TV]] (channel 38, now an independent station) in [[Boston]];<ref name="b&c-breakthrough"/>
* and United Video, which also sought to relay WOR (without an overnight backup feed) and WSBK.<ref name="b&c-breakthrough"/>
Reactions to the FCC's 1978 "open entry" policy ruling among program distributors ranged from "anger to passive acceptance," with concerns that satellite-distributed superstations would not adequately compensate program syndicators based on the acquired program's national availability and provide difficulty for program sales once content was sold to broadcasters in smaller markets with superstation importation via cable.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Spreading the product|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|page=63|date=April 25, 1988}}</ref> Then on November 4, the FCC rescinded a provision requiring cable systems seeking a waiver of signal importation limits to prove the unique circumstances that justified the waiver, while still requiring them to show that local stations would not suffer adverse public service impacts as a result of ratings or revenue losses from the imported signal, an action that was considered a greenlight to the creation of additional national superstations.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Distant signals closer and closer|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|page=24|date=November 6, 1978}}</ref>

While most superstations took on a passive stance on their distribution—programming to their local audience while benefiting tacitly from their extended distribution—a small number attempted to fight efforts to be redistributed; in March 1979, [[Metromedia]]—which was fighting an FCC grant allowing ASN Inc. (which also had been given permission to uplink WGN-TV and WOR-TV) to make KTTV an "involuntary superstation," claiming such retransmission would be a violation of a provision of Section 325 of the Communications Act that prohibited signal retransmission without a broadcaster's express consent, even though Section 111 of the 1976 Copyright Act effectively allowed such importation – asked the FCC to temporarily halt all authority for the satellite distribution and marketing of superstation signals.<ref name="b&c-panicbutton">{{cite magazine|title=Metromedia and NAB hit the FCC panic button over superstations|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.page=62-63|date=March 25, 1979}}</ref> Concurrent with the Metromedia petition, the NAB—later to be joined in the petition by, among others, the MPAA, the NBA, the [[National Hockey League]] (NHL), Major League Baseball [[Commissioner of Baseball|Commissioner]] [[Bowie Kuhn]], WGN Continental Broadcasting and ABC—urged the FCC to conduct an expedited rulemaking aimed at curbing "the harmful impact of superstation development on broadcast program service to the public," positing that they posed a serious threat to the ability of program producers to guarantee exclusive local rights to prospective stations seeking to buy programs being offered on the syndication market. ASN rebutted that KTTV had acknowledged the company was being authorized to redistribute its programming without distributor permission as the station could not do it on its own without shouldering liability. The issue was never fully settled, however, as ASN Inc. ceased operations amid financial issues before it could be able to retransmit KTTV's signal.<ref name="b&c-panicbutton"/><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Battle rages at FCC over reluctant superstation|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|pages=28, 33, 44, 45|date=July 23, 1979}}</ref>

The FCC repealed its remaining cable television regulations in a 4–3 vote on July 22, 1980, eliminating its restrictions on the number of broadcast stations that cable systems could carry and syndication exclusivity protections for local television stations on the basis that "local stations are not adversely affected when a cable system offers subscribers signals from television stations in other cities." The repeal of its signal importation and Syndex rules resulted in many cable systems beginning to carry other national superstations and additional regional out-of-market independents.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=FCC now all but out of cable business|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=25–27|date=July 28, 1980}}</ref> The following day (July 23), television station owner Malrite Broadcasting (later Malrite Communications) filed a lawsuit in [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York|United States Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of New York]] to stop the rules from going into effect. The National Association of Broadcasters and [[Field Communications]] subsequently filed stay motions to the FCC (which denied the requests) until the Malrite suit was adjudicated, amid concerns over harm that the repeal could incur to station revenue and local viewership of syndicated programs if the same program could be duplicated by superstations and other distant signals.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Washington Watch: Naturally.|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=104|date=August 25, 1980}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=NAB seeks FCC stay of repeal of last big cable rules|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=46|date=September 29, 1980}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=NAB request for stay in cable case denied by FCC|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=46|date=October 27, 1980}}</ref> On June 19, 1981, the three-judge New York Court of Appeals panel unanimously affirmed the distant signal and syndication exclusivity repeals; after multiple delays, the repeal of both regulations went into effect one week later on June 24. The U.S. Supreme Court also affirmed the repeal by declining a request by the NAB to review the FCC order in January 1982.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Appeals court upholds FCC repeal of distant-signal, exclusivity rules|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=29|date=November 24, 1980}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Distant signal rule goes into effect as NAB heads for Supreme Court|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=42|date=July 6, 1981}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Cable: It can't lose for winning|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=27–29|date=January 18, 1982}}</ref>

Interpretations of the copyright act also led to legal cases against superstation distributors. In April 1981, Tribune Broadcasting filed a [[copyright infringement]] suit against United Video in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois]], on grounds that United inserted teletext content from its [[Dow Jones & Company|Dow Jones]] business news service over the satellite feed's [[vertical blanking interval]] (VBI) during retransmissions of WGN's newscasts and other local programs in place of the teletext [[TV listings|listings]] data that the station was relaying to United's Electronic Program Guide (EPG) service (later Prevue Guide and now the entertainment-based [[Pop (U.S. TV network)|Pop]]) in violation of the Copyright Act's passive carrier rules.<ref name="b&c-interpretcopyright">{{cite magazine|title=Interpreting the copyright act|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=57|date=May 4, 1981}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Sticky issue in WGN-United Video case|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=89|date=September 7, 1981}}</ref> In October 1981, District Court Judge Susan Getzendanner denied an injunction to WGN Continental Broadcasting and dismissed the United Video case, determining that United was not required to carry the station's teletext transmission. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Northern District of Illinois disagreed, ruling in August 1982 that United Video must retransmit WGN-TV's VBI teletext where directly related to and part of the 9:00&nbsp;p.m. news simulcast, noting that United had no grounds to claim the unseen teletext exempted it from copyright liability as the Copyright Act's definition of what constitutes as a public performance was broad enough to encompass indirect transmission through cable affiliates.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=In Brief|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=312|date=October 12, 1981}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Appeals court offers protection to WGN-TV's teletext signal|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=29–30|date=August 16, 1982}}</ref>

The MPAA, the NAB (despite its insistence that the CRT had limited to no authority to set rates outside the mandatory five-year interval), sports leagues and other copyright holders soon asked the Copyright Office to hike its royalty rates to compensate for the loss of the distant signal carriage and syndication exclusivity deregulation.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Washington Watch: Copyright request|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=58|date=September 21, 1981}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Washington Watch: NAB backs MPAA|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=74|date=October 12, 1981}}</ref> On October 22, 1982, the Copyright Royalty Tribunal instituted a statutory license rate adjustment, establishing a 3.75% royalty fee of a cable system's gross receipts from subscribers (if their semi-annual revenue exceeds $214,000) for carriage of each previously impermissible distant signal and a SyndEx surcharge for programs transmitted on a previously blackout-subjected imported signal that was added after the rules were repealed, alongside existing royalties paid to the CRT "Basic Fund". The increase met with backlash from cable industry executives and lobbyists, led by [[NCTA (association)|National Cable Television Association]] (NCTA) President [[Tom Wheeler (FCC)|Tom Wheeler]], who were concerned that it would result in the removal of superstations and other distant signals as well as harm independent stations supported by the extended audience.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Cable industry mounting counterattack on CRT|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=24–25|date=November 22, 1982}}</ref> By the time the fees were imposed on March 15 (which was dubbed by cable systems as "Black Tuesday for Cable Viewers"), NCTA estimates showed that about 6.3&nbsp;million subscribers nationwide had lost access to one or more distant signals because of defections by cable systems that wanted to avoid paying the increased copyright fees. Dating back weeks prior to the deadline (as some systems chose to remove imported signals after the CRT delayed the fee imposition), various distant signals experienced a combined loss of 493 cable clearances, with WTBS, WGN-TV and WOR-TV making up half the defections with a combined loss of 249 clearances. Other cable-originated services benefited from the fee increases and distant signal defections, with the Cable Health Network (CHN; merged with Daytime in 1984 to form [[Lifetime (TV network)|Lifetime]]) experiencing the most growth; by March 1983, 1.2&nbsp;million of the 9.1&nbsp;million subscribers that CHN had at the time came from cable systems that replaced a distant signal with the channel. (Later estimates showed that WTBS lost 320,000 subscribers, while Eastern Microwave recouped around 200,000 subscribers for WOR and United Video recouped around 600,000 of its CRT-related losses of 1.2&nbsp;million subscribers by May 1983.)<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Black Tuesday descends on cable industry|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=61–62|date=March 21, 1983}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=How Copyright Fees Affect Cable TV|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/19/arts/how-copyright-fees-affect-cable-tv.html|author=Sally Bedell|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 19, 1983|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Closed Circuit: False alarm?|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=7|date=May 2, 1983}}</ref>

On May 18, 1988, the FCC passed a new version of the Syndication Exclusivity Rights Rule. The new policy—spurred in part by a 1987 study conducted by the Association of Independent Television Stations (INTV), which provided evidence that programming duplication between superstations and local stations created significant ratings dilution for the latter group in certain time periods and a resulting significant loss of advertising revenue—not only allowed television stations to claim local exclusivity over syndicated programs (even if the out-of-market station has the same owner as the station with that particular exclusive program) and required cable systems to black out claimed programs; it also granted cable systems or carrier firms the ability to secure an agreement with the claimant station or a syndication distributor to continue carrying a claimed program through an out-of-market station, allowing some superstations to acquire partial or exclusive national cable rights to certain programs. The law also closed the [[terrestrial loophole]] that allowed superstations like WGN and WTBS to continue paying local single market rates for programming acquisitions even as they were gaining national coverage, whilst selling that extended coverage to advertisers; this change made it so that other local stations which had their signals beamed to a satellite transponder – whether willingly or not – were charged appropriately for program content based on their actual national distribution, depending on arrangements with any given syndicator.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Syndex redux: FCC levels the playing field|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=31–33|date=May 23, 1988}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=FCC Reimposes Rule On TV Exclusivity|url=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-05-19/business/8803180484_1_fcc-chairman-dennis-patrick-exclusivity-rules-superstations|author=Charles Storch|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=May 19, 1988|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=FCC Reinstates Exclusive Rights|url=https://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-18/news/mn-2996_1_exclusive-rights|agency=[[Reuters]]|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=May 18, 1988|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Same reruns on too many channels? FCC says no more. Panel's ruling considered defeat for cable operators|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0526/lfcc.html|author=Louise Sweeney|periodical=[[Christian Science Monitor]]|publisher=[[Christian Science Publishing Society]]|date=May 26, 1988|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title='SyndEx' Spells Confusion Over Future Programming|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1988/05/28/syndex-spells-confusion-over-future-programming/fb2a891d-a9a6-4095-9d44-98bd658d9d3c/|author=Norman Chad|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=May 28, 1988|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref>

A major concern brought about by the new rules was that it would force cable systems to drop certain superstations altogether, rather than shoulder expenses that would be incurred with the resultant blackouts and any responsibilities for acquiring substitute programming, thereby denying viewers access to sporting events popular among subscribers who received those signals. In preparation for the policy's implementation – which took effect on January 1, 1990, after FCC-enforced delays in the regulation's rollout – some superstations decided to indemnify cable systems from potential blackouts by ensuring that, at least, some programs that could be subjected to local syndication exclusivity claims could continue to be shown to their national audience, so as to prevent the loss of sports access. WTBS effectively limited the number of necessary blackouts or substitutions by licensing the majority of its programming for carriage on both its national and Atlanta area feeds. (Certain local programs carried by the station, such as public affairs and educational children's programs, were not carried on the TBS national feed, but these omissions were because those programs were strictly intended to fulfill local obligations for public affairs content.)<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Making WTBS 'blackout-free'|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=40–41|date=July 31, 1989}}</ref>

United Video and Eastern Microwave respectively opted to devise standalone national feeds of WGN and WWOR, each incorporating an alternate schedule differing from the local broadcast signal to some degree—comprising both programs aired by the parent station for which the companies were able to secure the national retransmission rights (including some held over from before the SyndEx law was enacted), and supplementary programs acquired specifically for the national cable feed to absolve any holes caused by exclusivity claims—as well as separate national advertising, and in the case of WWOR, local advertising sold by individual cable systems. This would be achieved by "splitting" the signal, often requiring the use of a separate transponder to switch between the local feed and the alternate programming feed, so that certain programs viewed in the station's home market could be easily replaced with separate content that would only be shown over the national cable feed.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=United Video and WGN-TV to keep station syndex-proof|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=31|date=February 6, 1989}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Operators Get Avails on WWOR|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=39–40|date=August 19, 1991}}</ref> While United Video made efforts to clear as much of the programming seen on the WGN Chicago feed as it possibly could, EMI increasingly filled the national [[WWOR EMI Service]] feed with library content distributed by [[Universal Television]], [[MGM Television]] and [[Quinn Martin]]—consisting of classic television series from the 1950s to the 1970s—as well as select programs from the ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'' television service, alongside shows on WWOR's local program schedule that it was able to acquire retransmission rights at the national level (including local newscasts, sports and other WWOR-produced programming as well as special events, the station's overnight simulcast of the [[Shop at Home Network]] and a limited number of syndicated shows that did not have exclusivity claims in any market). Confusingly for WWOR's national cable viewers, on-air [[Promo (media)|promotions]] for programs not contracted to air nationally over the EMI Service were shown unaltered during simulcasts of programs aired on the New York signal. (This was not an issue with the WGN national feed, as United Video chose to substitute program promotions for shows airing on the Chicago signal that were not cleared on the national feed with those for the replacement shows exclusively seen on the latter, albeit still using station logos and promotional graphics used by the Chicago broadcast feed).

To blunt potential subscriber complaints over widespread programming blackouts, many cable systems removed both regional and quasi-national superstations (like WSBK, WPIX and KTVT) as well as other distant signals that their satellite carriers were unable or unwilling to take immediate steps to ensure their programming was "Syndex-proofed" to avoid blackouts. WGN and WTBS saw little negative impact to their distribution following the Syndex implementation, with WGN actually heavily benefiting from provider removals of other superstations (including then sister station WPIX) during the early 1990s, allowing for further expansion of its distribution reach. EMI estimated simultaneous losses of 500,000 subscribers and an increase of around one million households to its cable distribution of WWOR, the latter being attributed to some local cable systems adding the Syndex-proof WWOR EMI Service feed. Most complaints over the removal of some regional and quasi-national superstations were because of the loss of access to coverage from regional professional sports teams (such as the [[Boston Red Sox]] via WSBK, the [[Texas Rangers (baseball)|Texas Rangers]] and [[Dallas Mavericks]] via KTVT and the New York Yankees via WPIX), leading some systems to resort to cherrypicking sports from the removed superstations to mollify subscribers and local politicians acceding to complaints from their constituents by pushing other cable systems to seek solutions to resume sporting events lost through the removal of those superstations. (For example, amid public pressure from the Providence City Council and Rhode Island Department of Public Utilities and Carriers, Dimension Cable Services's [[Providence, Rhode Island]] system [now operated by [[Cox Communications]]], which removed the 24-hour WPIX feed upon the Syndex rollout, began placing the station's Yankees telecasts on a local origination channel in May 1990, in exchange for paying United Video full-time copyright fees.)<ref>{{cite news|title=Local Stations Undergo Format Switch|url=https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-19891125-1989-11-25-8911210272-story.html|author=Joseph Pryweller|newspaper=[[Daily Press (Pennsylvania)|Daily Press]]/[[The Times-Herald]]|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=November 25, 1989|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Returns coming in after week one of syndex|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=137|date=January 9, 1990}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Cherrypicked Answer To Baseball Blackout|author=Andy Grossman|periodical=Channels|publisher=C.C. Publishing LP (Act III Publishing)|date=June 25, 1990}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=That Dreaded Syndex Clause Guns Down Mavs, Rangers|url=https://www.tulsaworld.com/archive/that-dreaded-syndex-clause-guns-down-mavs-rangers/article_0b29a40a-b74a-5530-ae1b-d13d8a4b0f9b.html|author=Dan O'Kane|newspaper=[[Tulsa World]]|publisher=World Publishing Company|date=December 15, 1989|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> The WWOR EMI Service—despite having SyndEx-proofed its programming schedule—and WPIX would each see their distribution erode during the early 1990s, as some of the cable affiliates that carried either superstation began replacing them with the WGN national feed.<ref>{{cite news|title=WGN gains 2.2M subs; program appeal cited|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-9267407.html|periodical=Multichannel News|publisher=[[Fairchild Publications]]|date=July 16, 1990|access-date=January 18, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924165250/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-9267407.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 24, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Midwest systems switch out WWOR; cable television operators sign up WGN|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11865391.html|author=R. Thomas Umstead|periodical=Multichannel News|publisher=Fairchild Publications|via=HighBeam Research|date=January 13, 1992|access-date=January 18, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121105165631/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11865391.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=November 5, 2012}}</ref>

The passage of the [[Satellite Home Viewer Act|Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988]] on October 19, 1988, extended the compulsory license to direct-to-home (DTH) satellite services, protecting distribution of broadcast signals to dish owners under existing copyright statutes. (The act's provisions primarily benefited so-called "affiliate superstations," provided that the distant network stations could only be distributed to "unserved households" that were unable to receive a local affiliate off-air.)<ref name="PassesTVRO"/><ref>{{cite news|title=Network-SBN litigation all but settled by superstation bill|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=56|date=October 30, 1988}}</ref> For many years after the passage of SyndEx for cable systems, the satellite television industry remained exempt from syndication exclusivity regulations, resulting in subscribers of direct broadcast satellite and C-Band providers continuing to be able to view all programming seen on the local broadcast signals of national and regional superstations (except where the provider already offered the SyndEx-compliant cable feed). An FCC inquiry on whether SyndEx rules should be applied to home dish services concluded in January 1991 that extending those rules to satellite "would be technically and economically infeasible" as equipment that would allow programs to be selectively blacked out based on the media market would not likely be marketed until after the initial compulsory license expired in 1994 and that the expense of "preventing viewing by a relatively few authorized home satellite dish owners for a relatively short period" would be greater than that incurred by cable providers.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=FCC Says No to Home Dish SyndEx|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=56|date=January 28, 1991}}</ref>

Copyright laws pertaining to broadcast signal carriage by satellite providers were eventually overhauled through amendments to the Communications Act of 1996 that were added through the November 1999 implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA), which allowed satellite providers to carry local broadcast signals on the Congressionally-suggested condition that the FCC develop rules protecting the sports, network and syndicated programming rights of local broadcasters. On November 2, 2000, the FCC approved identical network non-duplication, syndication exclusivity and sports blackout rules applying to the six FCC-designated national superstations (WGN-TV, KTLA, WPIX, KWGN-TV, WSBK-TV and WWOR-TV) and, in the case of the sports blackouts, other distant signals retransmitted over home dish units to an extent where it would be "technically feasible and not economically prohibitive;" this statute would eventually limit distribution of the five [[grandfather clause|grandfathered]] stations to rural areas without distributors of similar programming. The rules, which took effect on November 30 and also applied to satellite common carriers that uplinked and distributed the superstations, gave satellite providers at least four months to implement duplication protections for network and syndicated programs and 60 days notice to comply with sports and programming blackout requests. An exemption to the Communications Act's [[retransmission consent]] statute in the SHVIA rules allowed satellite carriers to retransmit a superstation signal absent the station's prior written consent under the latter two aspects of the aforementioned FCC-defined "national superstation" criteria, provided that the service complies with the non-duplication, syndication exclusivity and sports blackout rules. (TBS was not covered under the SHVIA's de facto distant signal grandfathering clause as its national feed was considered a technically separate entity from its over-the-air parent feed in Atlanta. The act's network non-duplication and Syndex rules were thought to negatively affect the distribution of WGN as its national feed was compliant with those restrictions.)<ref>{{cite web|title=Commission Implements Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act Sports Blackout and Program Exclusivity Rule Provisions for Satellite Carriers|url=https://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2000/nrcb0024.txt|publisher=Federal Communications Commission|date=November 2, 2000|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Local TV gets shield from DBS|url=https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/local-tv-gets-shield-dbs-95331|author=Bill McConnell|periodical=Broadcasting & Cable|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=8|date=November 6, 2000|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=FCC's Rules Cut TV Offerings of 2 Satellite Firms|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-nov-03-fi-46268-story.html|agency=Bloomberg News|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|date=November 3, 2000|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=FCC Adopts Network Nonduplication, Syndicated Exclusivity and Sports Blackout Rules for Satellite Carriers|url=https://www.dwt.com/advisories/FCC_Adopts_Network_Nonduplication_Syndicated_Exclusivity_and_Sports_Blackout_Rules_for_Satellite_Carriers_11_09_2000/|website=Davis Wright Tremaine LLP|date=November 9, 2000|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=FCC sets sat blackout rules; New law affects EchoStar, DirecTV programming|url=https://variety.com/2000/biz/news/fcc-sets-sat-blackout-rules-1117788684/|author=Pamela McClintock|periodical=[[Variety (newspaper)|Variety]]|publisher=Cahners Business Information|date=November 2, 2000|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA), signed into law on December 8, 2004, allowed satellite providers to carry "[[significantly viewed]]" superstations and distant network signals to subscribers royalty-free and with the payment of retransmission consent, provided that the subscriber also receives local stations from the provider, and permitted providers to deliver superstations to commercial businesses.<ref>{{cite web|title=Congress Extends and Amends Compulsory Copyright License for Satellite Delivered Superstations and Distant Network Stations|url=https://www.dwt.com/advisories/Congress_Extends_and_Amends_Compulsory_Copyright_License_for_Satellite_Delivered_Superstations_and_Distant_Network_Stations_12_16_2004/|website=Davis Wright Tremaine LLP|date=December 16, 2004|access-date=May 1, 2019}}</ref>

==== Conflicts with professional sports leagues ====
Much of the appeal of superstations to viewers came from the national carriage of sporting events involving professional league teams that contracted their telecasts to the originating stations within home markets. Although professional sports teams benefited heavily from their national exposure—especially with regards to WTCG/WTBS's carriage of the Atlanta Braves and the Atlanta Hawks, and WGN-TV's broadcasts of sporting events featuring the Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox and Chicago Bulls—superstation broadcasts of [[National Basketball Association]] (NBA) and [[Major League Baseball]] (MLB) games were met with resistance from league commissioners, who contended these telecasts—regardless of the positive effects on team loyalty—diluted the value of their national television contracts with other broadcast and cable networks. Some superstation operators (like Ted Turner and former [[Tribune Media|Tribune Company]] vice president John Madigan) note a lack of corroborating evidence of any negative effects on game attendance and league revenue, suggesting that sports leagues have used superstation telecasts of their games as a scapegoat for financial problems incurred by the league caused by other factors such as the performance of certain teams and management issues.<ref>{{cite news|title=Baseball on Cable-TV Still Has Fuzzy Image|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-19-sp-2113-story.html|agency=United Press International|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=April 19, 1987|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref>

The only federal restrictions applying to sports events shown on superstations and other imported signals was the so-called "same-game rule," enacted by the FCC in June 1975 to prohibit cable systems from retransmitting a sports event through a distant signal within a {{convert|35|mi|km|0}} zone around the city of the home team's arena if the game is not airing on a local television broadcaster, with a subsequent amendment requiring the broadcast rights-holder to inform local cable systems of game deletions no later than Monday of the preceding calendar week of the proposed deletion. (Other leagues had proposed a broader blackout zone: the [[National Hockey League]] [NHL] suggested that the protection zone should be extended across a team's entire home market, while the [[National Football League]] [NFL] and Major League Baseball each advocated for a {{convert|75|mi|km|adj=on}} zone, with the latter also seeking a {{convert|20|mi|km|adj=on|disp=sqbr}} zone around the cities of [[Minor League Baseball|minor league]] franchises and a {{convert|35|mi|km|adj=on|disp=sqbr}} zone around a team's local television rights-holder.)<ref>{{cite magazine|title=FCC on course for adopting same-game rule for importation of distant sports|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|page=30|date=June 30, 1975}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Same-game rule is out of bounds, say sports, broadcasters|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|page=63|date=September 1, 1975}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=For the Record|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|page=73|date=November 17, 1975}}</ref> The major professional sports leagues eventually imposed their own broadcasting restrictions around the number of games that could air annually on any out-of-market stations, which resulted in superstations sometimes substituting sports events with syndicated programming and feature films in adherence. (This had an adverse effect on WGN, WWOR and WPIX, which each had news departments, as some of their respective newscasts would be subjected to substitutions if a sports event—particularly one shown during prime time—was preempted.)

One of the first known legal efforts to challenge superstation telecasts of sports events came in April 1981, when Eastern Microwave Inc. filed a declaratory judgement inquiry in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of New York]], contending that its cable retransmissions of WOR's New York Mets telecasts did not constitute copyright infringement. Mets owner [[Doubleday (publisher)|Doubleday Sports Inc.]] contended it had the right to control the telecasts outside of its home market and informed EMI that the telecasts would be recorded upon transmission, effectively subjecting them to copyright by Doubleday; EMI contended that it was exempt from paying royalties for the telecasts under Section 111 (a) (3) of the Copyright Act, which contends that the secondary transmission of a program by an intermediary carrier did not infringe upon a copyright if the carrier had "no direct or indirect control over the content or selection of the primary transmission or over the particular recipients of the secondary transmission," and if the carrier's transmission activities only pertained to providing "wires, cables or other communications channels for the use of others."<ref name="b&c-interpretcopyright"/> On March 12, 1982, District Judge [[Neal Peters McCurn|Neal P. McCurn]] ruled that EMI and other satellite carriers were liable for royalty payments to program suppliers. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] (in a reversal of the Central District Court decision on October 20) and the Supreme Court (in a February 25, 1983, decision refusing review of the case) both concurred with EMI's arguments, holding that the company constituted as a "passive" carrier exempt from copyright fee payments—along with noting that EMI had only one available transponder for its extraterrestrial services and "naturally" sought to re-transmit "a marketable station"—under the Copyright Act's existing structure.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Judge's ruling in Eastern Microwave case muddies copyright waters|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|page=73|date=March 22, 1982}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Court reverses Eastern Microwave|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|pages=73–74|date=May 24, 1982}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Eastern Microwave cleared by Supreme Court|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|page=73|date=May 24, 1982}}</ref>

Outside of the teams that benefited from the broader exposure the telecasts gave them, Major League Baseball had long felt that superstations ate into their ability to gain revenue from agreements with national networks like ESPN. (As a comparison, in 1992, ESPN televised 175 baseball games as part of a broader $100-million-per year deal at a per-game cost of $571,428, about 12 times more than what TBS, WGN, WWOR and WPIX paid cumulatively for their respective team-based packages that year, encompassing a combined 435 games for an annual fee of $20&nbsp;million or a per-game cost of $46,000). A succession of three MLB Commissioners—which, among the position's responsibilities, handles negotiations for all national broadcasting contracts but is prohibited under the federal compulsory license law from controlling carriage of superstation telecasts—attempted to curb the telecasts or convince superstations to pay a higher fee for the national telecasts to varying success. After Bowie Kuhn was appointed Commissioner in 1981, team owners lobbied the league to place a tax on superstation telecasts; the proposed tax passed in a 24–2 vote (with the Braves and the Cubs dissenting). Other legal attempts by Kuhn and league management to reduce the superstation telecasts ultimately failed because of federal copyright laws that protected the broadcasts. The tax was implemented in January 1985, under successor [[Peter Ueberroth]], with Ted Turner becoming the first MLB team owner to agree to the revenue-sharing plan, under which he made annual contributions to the league's Central Fund for the continued right to carry Braves baseball games over WTBS. The Tribune Company (then-owner of WGN and WPIX, the former of which cited its absent accounting of its national cable audience in its advertising rates for its initial participation reluctance, as well as the Cubs), [[MCA Inc.]] (then owner of WWOR) and Gaylord Broadcasting (then owner of KTVT) soon each agreed to contribute to the fund for the right to air Cubs, White Sox, Yankees, Mets and Rangers games outside the teams' respective home markets. (The total payment reflected the reach of each superstation; by 1992, Turner and the Cubs paid $12&nbsp;million and $6&nbsp;million, respectively, reflecting WTBS's 58-million subscriber audience and WGN's 35 million subscribers at the time, whereas WWOR and WPIX each chipped in only $1&nbsp;million, better reflecting their more regionalized distribution.).<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Turner and baseball come to terms|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|pages=33–34|date=January 28, 1985}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Ueberroth: Superstation are Hazardous to Baseball's Health|url=https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1985-04-07-0290070043-story.html|author=Russ White|newspaper=[[Orlando Sentinel]]|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=April 7, 1985|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=What's Good for Ted Turner May Not Be So Super for Us: WGN|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1985-01-29-8501060379-story.html|author=Skip Myslenski|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=January 29, 1985|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Vincent Tries a Little Tenderness|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-06-21-9202250151-story.html|author=Jerome Holtzman|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=June 21, 1992|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref>

Concerns by many of Major League Baseball team owners that the share would be used to buoy the expansion of KTVT into a fourth national superstation (a move that would have had to be undertaken by United Video as it was the station's satellite redistributor), American League team owners voted down Gaylord Broadcasting President [[Edward L. Gaylord]]'s initial bid to purchase 33% of the Texas Rangers on January 11, 1985, in a 9–5 confirmation vote (below the two-thirds votes needed to approve the sale). Ueberroth would invoke a "best interests of baseball" clause on February 8 to approve the sale and associated broadcast contract with KTVT, which required Gaylord Broadcasting to pay re-transmission fees for games that the station televised outside of its six-state cable footprint.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Telecastings: Struck out|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|pages=99–100|date=January 28, 1985}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=In Brief|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=96|date=February 11, 1985}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Officials Feel Gaylord to Get OK on Rangers|url=https://newsok.com/article/2094444/officials-feel-gaylord-to-get-ok-on-rangers|author=Volney Meece|newspaper=The Oklahoman|publisher=Oklahoma Publishing Company|date=January 12, 1985|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Ueberroth Approves Gaylord-Rangers Deal|url=https://newsok.com/article/2097646/ueberroth-approves-gaylord-rangers-deal|author=Jerry McConnell|newspaper=The Oklahoman|publisher=Oklahoma Publishing Company|date=February 9, 1985|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Rangers' New Owners Not Planning Changes|url=https://newsok.com/article/2152637/rangers-new-owners-not-planning-changes|author=Jerry McConnell|newspaper=The Oklahoman|publisher=Oklahoma Publishing Company|date=July 5, 1986|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> Similar issues also prevented Gaylord from buying the 58% interest by majority-owner [[Eddie Chiles]], a share that Chiles would ultimately sell in a $46-million deal to an ownership group led by eventual [[Governor of Texas|Texas Governor]] and U.S. President [[George W. Bush]], real estate developer [[H. Bert Mack]] and investor Frank L. Morsani in April 1989.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Rangers sale opens up question for Gaylord|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications Inc.|pages=51–52|date=September 5, 1988}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Cablecastings: Ranger report|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=68|date=April 10, 1989}}</ref>

Ueberroth's successor, [[Fay Vincent]], took a more hard-line approach against baseball telecasts shown over superstations. During his two-year tenure as league commissioner, he tried to introduce contract language in local broadcast agreements that would allow a team to terminate the contract if broadcasts were re-transmitted "by any means" to more than 200,000 homes outside the team's territory, launched a petition to the FCC to redefine how its non-duplication rules constitute a "network program" to force cable systems to blackout superstation-licensed live sports broadcasts, and asked Congress for the repeal the compulsory copyright license and the inclusion of an amendment to the [[Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992]] that would force superstations to enforce blackouts of sporting events if a conflict occurred with a local telecast of the same game. (The latter amendment spurred an on-air campaign by Turner Broadcasting, which saw responses, mostly opposed to the proposed legislation, by more than 17,000 viewers.)<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Baseball Asks FCC for Local Exclusivity Against Superstations|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=95|date=September 10, 1990}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=In Brief|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=97|date=October 8, 1990}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=NCTA, Superstations Take Swing at Baseball's Exclusivity Protection Pitch|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=83|date=October 15, 1990}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=It's Root, Root, Root for the Out-of-Town Team|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=24|date=August 10, 1992}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Vincent Blasts Superstations|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-04-30-9202080473-story.html|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=April 30, 1992|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=TV: Vincent's Two-Way Problem|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-08-28-9203180654-story.html|author=Steve Nidetz|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=August 28, 1992|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> Then in July 1992, in a move seen by some as targeting the Cubs' WGN telecasts, Vincent ordered a realignment of the [[National League (baseball)|National League]] (NL) that sought to move the Chicago Cubs and the [[St. Louis Cardinals]] to the [[National League West]] and the Atlanta Braves and the [[Cincinnati Reds]] to the [[National League East]] starting with the 1993 season. Tribune staunchly opposed the proposed realignment, filing a [[breach of contract]] lawsuit accusing Vincent of overstepping his authority in ordering the realignment and arguing it would dilute existing team rivalries. (The realignment proposal also sparked concerns that local advertising revenue for WGN's prime time newscast would be depressed by frequent post-9:00&nbsp;p.m. <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Central Time Zone|Central Time]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> delays during the regular season from an increased number of Cubs games involving [[Pacific Time Zone]]-based Western Division teams starting in the late evening in the eastern half of the country. The Braves as well as the Cubs' [[American League]] [AL] rivals, the Chicago White Sox, had each already played many late-evening [Eastern/Central Time] games during the regular and postseason against West Coast teams in the western divisions of the [[National League West|National]] and [[American League West|American Leagues]].) U.S. District Judge [[Suzanne B. Conlon]] issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Tribune and the Cubs on July 23, 1992, six weeks prior to an 18-9-1 [[motion of no confidence]] against Vincent among team owners on September 4.<ref>{{cite news|title=TV SPORTS; Chicago (Not in Standings) Now in First|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/25/sports/tv-sports-chicago-not-in-standings-now-in-first.html|author=Richard Sandomir|newspaper=The New York Times|date=August 25, 1992|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Cubs Balk at Vincent Move|author=Steve McClellan|periodical=Broadcasting & Cable|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=10|date=July 13, 1992}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Judge Backs Up Cubs in Dispute Against Baseball|periodical=Broadcasting & Cable|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=4|date=July 27, 1992}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Too Many Small-Market Owners Are Being Shortsighted|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-09-06-9203210386-story.html|author=Jerome Holtzman|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=September 6, 1992|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Vincent Quits; May Be Last Baseball Czar|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-09-08-9203210911-story.html|author=Jerome Holtzman|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=September 8, 1992|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> Impacts to baseball's attempts to curb superstation telecasts were felt following Vincent's subsequent resignation as MLB Commissioner on September 7, 1992; one week after his departure, the proposed blackout amendment failed to make a Cable Television Act reconciliation bill due to the lack of support for the provision in the Senate.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Vincent Departure Impacts MLB's Washington Agenda|author=Joe Flint|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=68|date=September 14, 1992}}</ref>

The NBA also undertook actions to limit superstation telecasts of the league's games. In 1982, it began prohibiting television stations that reached at least 5% of all out-of-market cable households from airing games that conflicted with those shown on the league's national cable partners (at the time, [[NBA on ESPN|ESPN]] and [[NBA on USA|USA Network]]); this transitioned in June 1985 to a 25-game limit on the number of seasonal NBA telecasts that could be licensed to superstations (sixteen fewer than the 41-game maximum under existing NBA local broadcast rules).<ref>{{cite news|title=N.B.A. Expansion Unlikely for 1986–87|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/27/sports/nba-expansion-unlikely-for-1986-87.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 27, 1985|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> Concerned with the potential impact that the concurring returns of the Chicago Bulls and the Atlanta Hawks to WGN and WTBS, respectively, would have on its national contracts with [[NBA on NBC|NBC]] and ESPN, in April 1990, NBA Commissioner [[David Stern]] further reduced the amount of superstation-licensed NBA telecasts to 20 games per season. This sparked a 5½-year legal battle against the NBA by Tribune Broadcasting and Chicago Bulls parent Chicago Professional Sports L.P. The conspiracy and antitrust lawsuit filed by the co-plaintiffs in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois]] on October 16, 1990, alleged that the 20-game limit was aimed at "phas[ing] out such superstations telecasts entirely in increments of five games each year over the next five years," a separate plan proposed by Stern that was never voted upon by NBA team owners. (The NBA contended the restriction was exempt from antitrust law under a provision of the [[Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961]], which was deemed in later rulings to only be applicable to the sale or transfer a national game package to a television network and not those involving individual teams.)<ref>{{cite magazine|title=WGN-TV Takes NBA to Court Over Superstation Rule|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=42|date=November 5, 1990}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=TV SPORTS; Bulls, Superstations And Power Moves|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/16/sports/tv-sports-bulls-superstations-and-power-moves.html|author=[[Richard Sandomir]]|newspaper=The New York Times|date=April 16, 1991|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Bulls, WGN Sue NBA for Telecast Cut|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1990-10-27-9003310965-story.html|author=Steve Nidetz|author2=John Gorman|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=October 27, 1990|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref name="marquette-bullscase">{{cite web|title=The Economics of Sports Leagues – The Chicago Bulls Case|url=http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1441&context=sportslaw|author=Franklin M. Fisher|author2=Christopher Maxwell|author3=Evan Sue Schouten|website=Marquette Sports Law Review|year=1999|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> After four separate rulings in favor of Tribune and the Bulls issued by Northern District Judge [[Hubert Louis Will|Hubert L. Will]] (on January 26, 1991, and January 6, 1995),<ref>{{cite news|title='Geraldo' Goes to Moscow|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-01-27-9101080557-story.html|author=James Warren|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=January 27, 1991|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=PRO BASKETBALL; N.B.A. TV Limits Ruled Illegal|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/07/sports/pro-basketball-nba-tv-limits-ruled-illegal.html|author=Richard Sandomir|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 7, 1995|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals]] (on April 14, 1992),<ref>{{cite news|title=Bulls, WGN Big Winners in Court|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-04-15-9202030798-story.html|author=James Warren|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=April 15, 1992|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> and the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] (on November 5, 1992),<ref>{{cite magazine|title=High Court Rules for WGN in NBA Case|author=Rich Brown|periodical=Broadcasting & Cable|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=54|date=November 9, 1992}}</ref> a Seventh Circuit judiciary panel overturned their 1992 ruling on September 10, 1996,<ref name="marquette-bullscase"/> which forced WGN-TV – which had been allowed to air at least 30 Bulls telecasts over its local and national feeds between the [[1992–93 Chicago Bulls season|1992–93]] and [[1995–96 NBA season|1995–96]] seasons per agreement between the lawsuit parties – to relegate the 35 Bulls games it was scheduled to air during the [[1996–97 Chicago Bulls season|1996–97 season]] exclusively to the Chicago area signal. (The embargoed Bulls telecasts were supplanted on the WGN superstation feed by syndicated feature films, and caused the national preemption of the station's 9:00&nbsp;p.m. newscast on nights when prime time games overran into the time slot.)<ref>{{cite news|title=Bulls Get OK for 30 WGN Games in '92–93|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-02-21-9201170182-story.html|author=James Warren|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=February 21, 1992|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Bulls Get More WGN Telecasts|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1995-01-07-9501070108-story.html|author=Matt O'Connor|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=January 7, 1995|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Appeals Court Reverses Call on Bulls Telecasts|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-09-11-9609110123-story.html|author=Matt O'Connor|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=September 11, 1996|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=WGN to Televise 35 Bulls Games—To Local Audience Only|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-10-15-9610150176-story.html|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=October 15, 1996|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=No Bulls; Cable TV can't carry Chicago games|url=https://www.postbulletin.com/no-bulls-cable-tv-can-t-carry-chicago-games-if/article_991403a5-3121-54a4-bec0-1045dfbef46b.html|newspaper=[[Post-Bulletin]]|publisher=Post-Bulletin Company, LLC|date=October 19, 1996|access-date=May 6, 2019|archive-date=April 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190401151340/https://www.postbulletin.com/no-bulls-cable-tv-can-t-carry-chicago-games-if/article_991403a5-3121-54a4-bec0-1045dfbef46b.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Tele-Communications Inc.]] (TCI, now defunct) cited the national restrictions on the Bulls as partly being behind its December 1996 decision to remove the WGN national feed from most of its systems throughout the country, affecting around 3.5&nbsp;million TCI subscribers by March 1997, though criticism over the move led TCI to rescind its plans to remove the WGN national feed from affected systems in [[Illinois]], [[Indiana]], [[Iowa]], [[Wisconsin]] and [[Michigan]] with the remaining systems reinstating WGN through 1999.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=WGN-TV/NBA headed back to court in 6-year-old case|periodical=Broadcasting & Cable|publisher=Cahners Business Information|date=October 21, 1996}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=TCI move not so super for superstations|author=Jim McConville|periodical=Broadcasting & Cable|publisher=Cahners Business Information|pages=92, 94|date=December 9, 1996}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Networks on chopping block; TCI makes mincemeat of programmers' lineups|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19044057.html|author=Richard Katz|periodical=Multichannel News|publisher=Cahners Business Information|via=HighBeam Research|date=December 2, 1996|access-date=February 24, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121105151508/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19044057.html|archive-date=November 5, 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=WGN-TV gets Christmas present|periodical=Broadcasting & Cable|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=34|date=December 30, 1996}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=WGN Looks to Soar After Difficult Period|url=https://www.multichannel.com/news/wgn-looks-soar-after-difficult-period-154013|author=Linda Moss|periodical=[[Multichannel News]]|publisher=Cahners Business Information|date=March 29, 1998|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> The Bulls, WGN and the NBA reached a settlement on December 12, 1996, allowing WGN-TV to air the league broadcast maximum of 41 games for the remainder of the 1996–97 season (35 that would air only on the Chicago signal and twelve that would be shown on both the local and superstation feeds). From the [[1997–98 Chicago Bulls season|1997–98 season]] thereafter, the number of games permitted to air on the superstation feed increased to 15 per year. The parties also agreed to replace the NBA's licensing tax for superstations with a revenue sharing model, under which the NBA would collect 50% of all advertising revenue accrued from the national WGN telecasts.<ref>{{cite news|title=Bulls Return to National Picture|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-13-9612130107-story.html|author=Michael Hirsley|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|publisher=Tribune Publishing|date=December 13, 1996|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=The Bulls Storm the Court(room): Chicago Professional Sports Limited Partnership v. The National Basketball Association|url=https://www.law.berkeley.edu/sugarman/Sports_Stories_Bulls_Brian_Bell.pdf|author=Brien C. Bell|publisher=[[UC Berkeley School of Law]]|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref>

TBS was able to work around these issues by supplementing its Atlanta-originated sports broadcasts with more nationalized sports fare, including a package of regular season NBA games involving the league's other teams, early round [[NBA Playoffs|conference playoff games]] and the [[NBA draft]] (beginning with the [[1984–85 NBA season|1984–85 season]] and continuing until Turner Broadcasting shifted the NBA cable rights to sister channel [[TNT (U.S. TV channel)|TNT]] in [[2002–03 NBA season|2002]]),<ref>{{cite news|title=TV Sports Coverage Vaults to Profitability; NBC Wins Its Gold Before|author=Paul Farhi|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|page=h.01|date=September 11, 1988}}</ref> [[professional wrestling]] programs from several promotions (including [[Georgia Championship Wrestling]], the World Wrestling Federation [now the [[WWE]]], [[Jim Crockett Promotions]], [[Universal Wrestling Federation (Bill Watts)#Mid-South Wrestling (1979–1986)|Mid-South Wrestling]] and finally, the Turner-owned [[World Championship Wrestling]]) until 2001,<ref>{{cite magazine|title=WCW on the ropes|author=[[John M. Higgins]]|periodical=Broadcasting & Cable|publisher=Cahners Business Information|page=8|date=March 19, 2001}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Turner to Drop Wrestling, Shed Jobs|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/11/business/turner-to-drop-wrestling-shed-jobs.html|author=Jim Rutenberg|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 11, 2001|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> [[National Collegiate Athletics Association|NCAA]] [[college football]] games (from [[1981 NCAA Division I-A football season|1981]] to [[1992 NCAA Division I-A football season|1992]] and from [[2002 NCAA Division I-A football season|2002]] to [[2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season|2007 season]]),<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Turner buys NCAA cable rights for $17.6 million|periodical=Broadcasting|publisher=Broadcasting Publications, Inc.|page=34|date=February 1, 1982}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Turner Cable TV Gets N.C.A.A. Football Pact|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/28/sports/turner-cable-tv-gets-ncaa-football-pact.html|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 28, 1982|access-date=May 6, 2019}}</ref> various [[NASCAR]] auto races and the Olympics-inspired [[Goodwill Games]]. The WGN national feed also was prohibited from carrying [[Chicago Blackhawks]] hockey games, when WGN-TV assumed local rights to the team during the [[2007–08 Chicago Blackhawks season|2007–08 season]], due to broadcast rights restrictions imposed by the NHL to protect the league's exclusive national broadcasting contracts with [[NHL on ESPN|ESPN]] and later a [[NHL on NBC|joint broadcast-cable contract]] with [[NBCUniversal]].