Most broadcasters still haven't figured out what they want to do with the extra bits in their digital channels.

Some have launched local weather channels. Others, in smaller markets, have used the spare capacity to create digital affiliates of such well-established networks as CW, MNT, Univision and Telemundo. Gray Television, for one, is banking heavily on the digital duopoly strategy.

Some are giving a digital ride to upstart digital networks, notably LATV, a young-skewing Spanish-language network, and Retro Television Network, a “classic TV” channel from Equity Media.

And there is growing interest is setting aside at least some of the bits for a channel or two of mobile television—that is, broadcasting whatever to cell phones and other hand-held devices or even to cars zipping down the highway.

I suppose these are all good ideas and worth a try.

But here's a better one.

What's the best TV programming out there today?

Even the most fanatical cable guy would have to agree that on the whole it's still the stuff found in primetime on the Big Four broadcast networks.

They've got most of the shows most of the people want to see—American Idol, Without a Trace, Dancing with the Stars, lots of NFL and more, much more.

So, what the affiliates should do is repurpose this wonderful programming on their digital channels—with a twist or two.

One twist is time-shifting the programming by, say 24 hours. WTAE, Hearst-Argyle's ABC affiliate in Pittsburgh, would air Ugly Betty, Grey's Anatomy and October Road on Thursday night on its main channel and then the same three shows Friday night on the digital outlet.

The affiliates could time-shift the syndicated programming, too, or find new shows to complement the network fare. Of course, the news would always be the same on both channels since it's done live.

Another way to repurpose network programming is zoning—that is, creating separate channels for different regions within the DMAs. This makes the most sense in markets covering a lot of geography with distinct communities.

In New York, for instance, WABC could air different channels for New Jersey, Long Island, Manhattan and Westchester/Connecticut.

With zoning, all the programming would stay the same expect the news. WABC-New Jersey will have news about the shooting in Newark, not some fire in Islip, Long Island.

Both approaches divide the viewership, but multiply the spots that can be sold. Two showings of Ugly Betty on successive days will likely yield more total viewers than just one showing, and they are going to double the spots.

Likewise, four simultaneous showings of Ugly Betty on four regionally targeted channels would not only increase total viewership, but would also quadruple the spots.

Broadcasters would have the option of selling across all the channels or on just one or two.

And because the spots can be sold on a regional basis, it would open the door to low-budget advertisers who couldn't afford the entire market. In other words, an auto dealer in New Jersey who never considered buying WABC might buy WABC-New Jersey.

Broadcasters may also be able to induce cable operators to pay retrans fees for the extra channels. In the past, operators have shown a willingness to pay for channels that provide honest-to-goodness value to their subs. The time-shifted or zoned channels would.

The digital channels would not be free, but they would be relatively inexpensive. There will be extra licensing fees, for sure. The biggest cost for broadcasters would be in producing the extra zoned newscasts, but even that cost would be incremental.

But can any broadcasters afford not to provide hyperlocal news? If they don't, cable will (and has in many places). Radio stations and newspapers might also step in to fill the void.

Now for my confession:

This isn't my idea. It's really that of the Fox affiliate board. It cooked up this idea about a year ago and presented it to the network.

The network shot it down, moaning that permitting the multiple runs on broadcast outlets is prohibitively expensive because of the residual payments.

But the idea deserves a second shot. Or, at least some more thought. What are the plusses and minuses? Will multiple channels with the same core programming improve the BCF, or simply further fractionalize the market.

The Big Four seem obsessed with distributing their primetime shows on every new media platform they can find—cellphones, PDAs, Web sites. Why not their own affiliates' digital channels, too?

As I write this column on a Friday afternoon, I am watching last night's episode of 30 Rock on nbc.com (I have dual monitors). It seems to me it would do no harm to give people a chance to also watch it on a local digital channel.

(By the way, Jack Donaghy has got to be the most politically incorrect character on TV since Archie Bunker.)

CW, MNT, Univision, Telemundo, RTN and LATV are fine.

But they're not ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC—not by a long shot.