Seven are in a good spot as they now own and operate in every market they screen Seven content, except obviously in the 2 markets where there was the issues.
Nine/WIN own all except Spencer and the Imparja run Remote Central.
However, 10 will need government policy change as they have 6 markets they dont own / operate and rely on Seven / WIN / Imparja.
The common belief is that they don’t need policy change, the licences are separable and saleable - it’s whether the current holders are willing to sell them.
Whether 10 wants to own them is another thing entirely. They’re not markets that would be cheap to operate in (especially for potential revenue) especially if they need to increase local content as part of any sale
I wouldn’t say that this is the common belief.
These markets with solus and joint ventures are (for the most part) not profitable. It means that they are at risk of closing - as Mildura already is, as Griffith / Mt Gambier is (only came back on because of other factors), WA, Tasmania (both at risk).
Without legislative change (such as combining markets), reducation in tax offsets, etc then regional stations are at risk. 10 has decided to not operate Mildura (which they could) because it is unprofitable and makes no commercial sense.
The popular belief is that the government will need to step in before more regional areas / signals are switched off.
Whether they can buy the licence and whether those licences are (or can be) profitable are very different things.
There needs to be no policy shift to allow the former to proceed - whether the latter should be a matter that drives a change in the current policy is part of a much larger discussion.
The industry already gets a significant leg-up, for example they’ve had licence fees wiped for some time. There is no doubt that there are signficant barriers to allow them to be profitable longer term
They can definitely buy the licences.
The question is - will they? The answer is generally - they will not buy these licences if it makes no commercial sense.
Television (FTA), like access to medical, is almost seen as a ‘right’ for all Australians, even though its a commercial business. Its not like its free from government interference - mandates on news, classification, taxes, spectrum, anti siphoning list - all these factors have a factor in commercial viability.
If government would like unprofitable regional television markets to continue to have a free to air signal they will need to step in and make changes to allow a business to service that signal without losing money.
I dont think its a different conversation - my point was that more regional communities will lose their FTA signal for some stations moving forward if the government doesnt step in
I doubt that they’ll actively chase them, but we’ve reached a point where they’ll have to be (somewhat) reluctant buyers when the current owners (mainly WIN) want to get rid of them.
We have an unprofitable sector (or approaching one, depending on how you want to look at it), and in some significant part because the industry has caused it to occur. Regional networks are approaching that in name only thanks to years of cuts under the guise of protecting profitability, this has been supported by successive governments who have been somewhat limp-wristed around content requirements (the fact you can meet the local news requirements by broadcasting something that can be thrown in a couple of ad breaks 5 days a week is a good example of this)
There is no doubt the market has changed, and it continues to change, but those complaining about it are the ones who have either stayed still or moved only small amounts, usually with little desire to do so. We’re now in a position where the current operating model is broken beyond any kind of meaningful repair, its not something to celebrate either, it’s a result of systemic failures.
This might be the case, but it isn’t the point you originally made. That said, I’m not convinced that it isn’t a different conversation. The current model allows for ownership to be centralised to three entities if they so desire - there is little (if any) impediment to that occurring from a policy platform standpoint, but whether that is a smart decision based on economics is a different story entirely. And it’s certainly no guarantee that some of the more marginal services survive if there are no other changes.
There is also a significant risk that any changes will not change anything meaningfully to provide any protection anyway - our track record with media reform is fiddling while Rome burns and is often too little too late.
In Mildura case they are not reluctantly buying. They just left it. It is likely to occur in the future in other markets.
Because they needed considerable investment in equipment - a lot has changed since too, Ten had zero regional investment when MDV closed.
They can apply for the licence now. They haven’t. I have spoken to them directly and they have are not applying because the station is a loss maker and it does not make commercial sense for them to do so
And I’m sure a big factor in that is that they need to make a considerable capital investment.
I have heard there is a possibility there will be another push to have the Mildura situation revisited, especially after there was greater political will to fight for an outcome in what was purely a contractual disagreement.
That will be great.
I think changes to the Broadcast Act will be needed for long term sustainability in regional markets
If this is the case It will be good, but then the million-dollar question is that would 10 want to invest In Mildura technically there’s an available TV licence In the market now that MDV no longer is broadcasting.
It’s really hard to be sure how profitable the various Ten stations would be if they were actually run with a profit motive.
The joint ventures have backwards incentives - every bit of profit is split with their competitor in the market and is lost spend on their 100% owned service in the market - they have every incentive to ensure the joint venture is loss making, or at absolute most break even.
The basic decision for WIN with TDT and Ten West is obviously just how much they benefit from not having a real third competitor for advertising, and whatever they can write off on their taxes for the losses, compared to how much it costs them for their share of the running costs. I’d think at this point Ten would happily buy out WIN from the JVs (and I doubt Seven would care to keep their half).
I’d let Imparja keep eating the losses for CDT though…
If they had any motive of that kind, they would’ve already bid for the Mildura licence and restored 10 Mildura. Or gone after SCA’s stake in 10 Tasmania while they were already acquiring SCA’s east coast 10 stations. 
The size and comparative strength of Regional WA and Tasmania makes it more viable.
Ten have no real reason to want to change the status quo so don’t need to proactively try and buy the stations, but if WIN get serious about wanting out of their joint ventures, that’s the point where Ten should and I think would step in.
Anything Mildura is a bit off topic, but any moves there from Ten might be for the same reason we got the SA/Griffith situation solved quickly, the influence of national coverage in terms of sports rights deals. I doubt the A League will care, but if Ten make a play for the NRL it might matter.
Finally an ACMA updated list! July 2025 is out!
Here’s the link if anyone is wanting to download:
