File:Australia television market regions.png

Misleading or incorrect things
Aggregation was a one-off process in the early 1990s. Since then, more licences have been issued, and more aggregation has occurred. Marking markets "aggregated" and "non-aggregated" has little value. This doesn't describe how many commercial stations are in a market, or how many owners they have - as this description did for about five years. The Tasmanian market is almost exactly the same stationwise as Mildura is, and Darwin and Regional & Remote WA will be soon.

The "satellite" markets include many areas with terrestrial transmission. They should be treated like all the other markets.

SE SA and the Riverland are two separate markets. The solus commercial operator in both has just happened to be the same company for a while. I think the Spencer Gulf/Broken Hill situation is the same.

The Mildura/Sunraysia market is not as big as depicted. Part of that area is Remote Central/Eastern.

The markets with "Regional" or "Remote" in their names should be included. Not doing so implies that there are two special "satellite" licences and special "aggregated" licences. The second is particularly untrue.

To be even more correct, Mildura is "Mildura/Sunraysia" and Griffith is "Griffith/MIA" also.

If you want to get technical, there's a number of regional/remote WA markets, and regional Victoria is one market for some affiliates and two for others. matturn 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)