CHARLOTTE, N.C.—One of the most striking developments to emerge at the 2025 Golfweek Tech Lab gathering here May 15 at the J.W. Marriott was the laser-like focus placed by several startup tech firms, the venture capital community and the PGA Tour itself on fan engagement technology.

Companies like Bleachr, Cue, Mobii and PlayANYWHERE showed the 90 attendees their unique spins on elevating the experience of fans engaging with golf and other sports via their smartphones and other connected devices.

Not to be outdone, the PGA Tour is pursuing its own fan engagement strategy. “One of the big cultural shifts over the past five or six years is meeting the fans where they are,” says Scott Gutterman, senior vice president, Digital & Broadcast, for the PGA Tour, noting the tour is “getting closer and closer to the personalization … that people want.”

Also Read: CBS Sports Adds Innovative AR to Massive PGA Championship Coverage

Speaking during a fireside chat on the way technology is being used to capture a younger audience, Gutterman discussed how the PGA Tour is using AI platforms to “tell a story about every shot”—no small feat, given the 30,000 to 32,000 shots made during a typical tour event.

Each of those mini-stories will ultimately serve as the foundation of a service that delivers highlights to fans of their favorite players on their smartphones “when they’re running around town going to [kids’] soccer games, but they want to keep up,” he said.

Of course, the PGA Tour already relies on a variety of digital platforms, ranging from streaming via ESPN+ to distributing highlights via TikTok, to keep fans engaged with daily play as tournaments unfold.

“When I first arrived at the Tour [20 years ago], the rule was to get people to watch three hours of golf every single day,” Gutterman said. “Now really our stance on this has changed. How do we bring fans to the PGA Tour in any way? How do we meet fans where they are?”

What enables this innovation to drive deeper fan engagement? It would seem to be the same thing responsible for the countless other innovations that improve the lives of people in this country: freedom and the desire to profit.

But what about television broadcasters? Are they free to leverage the latest technologies to deliver the same sorts of personalized experiences with the content they broadcast to engage their “fans,” the viewers, more deeply and unlock new sources of revenue?

Enter Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s Delete, Delete, Delete deregulation initiative. The public notice announcing it said in part: “The Communications Act directs the FCC to regularly review its rules to identify and eliminate those that are unnecessary in light of current circumstances, recognizing that in addition to imposing unnecessary burdens, unnecessary rules may stand in the way of deployment, expansion, competition and technological innovation in communications that the Commission is directed to advance.”

Setting aside comments and reply comments filed at the agency with regards to NAB’s rulemaking petition aimed at having the agency establish dates certain for the ATSC 1.0 shutoff, I can’t help but read that quote and think about how rules are standing in the way of broadcasters’ “deployment, expansion, competition, and technological innovation.”

Some in this industry seem to be most interested in delete, delete, delete when it comes to ownership rules. But for the long-term health of the industry, it is equally important that the agency eliminate rules stifling tech innovation.

WASHINGTON—FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that the agency has launched a massive, new deregulatory initiative that could potentially subject virtually all of the agency’s existing regulations to review, including broadcast ownership caps.

As part of the effort the FCC has opened a new docket, titled “In re: Delete, Delete, Delete,” in which the agency said it "seeks comment on every rule, regulation, or guidance document that the FCC should eliminate for the purposes of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens."

In making the announcement Carr and the FCC said that the independent regulatory agency was acting in direct response to “President Trump’s leadership and the Trump Administration’s decision to usher in prosperity through deregulation.”

“In particular, this new proceeding will assist the FCC in carrying out the policies that President Trump included in certain Executive Orders, including Executive Order 14192 titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation’ and Executive Order 14219 titled `Ensuring Lawful Governance And Implementing The President’s ‘Department Of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative,’” the agency said in a news release.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the Administration is unleashing a new wave of economic opportunity by ending the regulatory onslaught from Washington,” Carr stated. “For too long, administrative agencies have added new regulatory requirements in excess of their authority or kept lawful regulations in place long after their shelf life had expired. This only creates headwinds and slows down our country’s innovators, entrepreneurs, and small businesses. The FCC is committed to ending all of the rules and regulations that are no longer necessary. And we welcome the public’s participation and feedback throughout this process.”

The request for comment on FCC rules can be found here.

In announcing the initiative, the FCC did not address the issue of whether certain rules, such as broadcast ownership caps, can be completely eliminated by the agency without Congressional action.

In the document the FCC said "We encourage commenters to consider certain policy factors, as described below and consistent with standards and objectives set forth in recent Presidential orders as well as statutory and regulatory retrospective review standards. We also invite more general comment on rules that should be considered for elimination on other grounds. Submissions should identify with as much detail and specificity as possible the rule or rules that the commenting party believes should be repealed (or modified) and the rationale for their recommended action. Commenters whose comments raise issues related to other open Commission dockets should file their comments in all relevant dockets.”

More specifically, the FCC laid out a lengthy list of considerations that it will use to eliminate regulations. It also urged companies and people to consider those factors in suggesting rules that needed to be eliminated:

• Cost-benefit considerations. "We thus broadly seek comment on cost-benefit considerations relevant to our analysis. Are there existing Commission rules for which the costs exceed the benefits? Are there rules that, if eliminated or modified, could result in greater benefits relative to the associated costs of the new regulatory framework? Are there other ways that cost-benefit considerations should inform our retrospective review of FCC rules?"
• "Experience gained from the implementation of the rule. Although the Commission has “wide latitude to make policy based upon predictive judgments,” there is “a correlative duty to evaluate its policies over time to ascertain whether they work—that is, whether they actually produce the benefits the Commission originally predicted they would.” For one, we seek comment on whether experience gained in the implementation of a given rule provides reason to believe that the rule is unnecessary or inappropriate, whether in its current form or otherwise.
• "Marketplace and technological changes. The occurrence of marketplace and technological changes that render a rule unnecessary or inappropriate are among the most commonly-identified criteria in retrospective review standards and policies. We therefore broadly seek comment on what existing FCC rules are unnecessary or inappropriate on that basis. Are there existing rules that have outlived their usefulness, for which there is no longer any (or only substantially diminished) need, or which otherwise give rise to harms in light of technological and marketplace developments? "
• "Regulation as barrier to entry. It has been often claimed there are large economies of scale inherent in compliance with regulatory programs, with regulation resulting in different levels of compliance costs for different types and sizes of companies.14 Following our obligation to “assess whether laws, regulations, regulatory practices . . . pose a barrier to competitive entry into the communications marketplace,” we seek comment on whether certain regulations impose costs unequally on large and small businesses or if they unfairly disadvantage American-owned businesses."
• "Changes in the broader regulatory context. Rules do not exist in isolation, but operate against a backdrop of other FCC rules, other federal rules and requirements, relevant state and local laws, and industry self-regulatory efforts including the adoption of technical standards or best practices. We seek comment on whether changes in the broader regulatory context demonstrate that particular Commission rules are unnecessary or inappropriate...Does the aggregate cost of a set of FCC rules and other regulatory requirements outweigh the benefits of a Commission rule or rules? Has the adoption of industry standards, best practices, or other self-regulatory efforts sufficiently diminished any need for, or benefits of, particular rules to warrant their repeal? Are there other circumstances where changes in the broader regulatory context render existing FCC rules unnecessary or inappropriate?"
• "Changes in, or other implications of, the governing legal framework. Where the statutory provision that a given rule implements has been changed since the adoption of that rule, it is appropriate for the agency to revisit the rule to determine if its repeal (or modification) would better effectuate the newly-governing statutory scheme.1We seek comment on any examples of Commission rules that should be revisited on that basis. Moreover, we observe that the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision overruled the Chevron framework that in years past had provided a relevant backdrop for many agency interpretations of statutes."
• "Other considerations relevant to the retrospective review of Commission rules. We seek comment on any other considerations relevant to our identification of existing rules that are unnecessary or inappropriate. For example, are there rules that remain in the Code of Federal Regulations that no longer have any operative effect—whether because their self-described effectiveness has passed, or otherwise? Are there rules with a sunset period or for which the Commission committed on its own to undertake further regulatory review, but where that regulatory review has not yet occurred? Are there situations where a case- by-case approach is better suited to the implementation of particular statutory mandates as compared to bright-line rules? Are there existing rules that could give rise to a risk of regulatory capture? Are there other problems that could arise from existing rules that render them unnecessary or inappropriate?"

The FCC said that parties should file all comments and reply comments in GN Docket No. 25-133.

WASHINGTON—The FCC and National Association of Broadcasters made their virtual arguments to the Supreme Court Tuesday, Jan. 19, on why a lower court (the Third Circuit Court of Appeals) was wrong to invalidate the FCC's 2017 broadcast ownership deregulation decision, a defense that came in the waning hours of the FCC's Republican majority, which had approved the rule changes over the objections of FCC Democrats.

On the other side, the attorney for consolidation opponents said the FCC had failed to do its statutory due diligence and earned the legal smackdown yet again.

While it is always tough to predict from oral argument—Justices often play devil's advocate to probe arguments—government attorneys and broadcasters were likely not unhappy with the tenor of the questioning.

Preston Padden, former top exec with Disney and Fox, tweeted immediately following the arguments: "After listening to FCC v Prometheus SCOTUS oral argument today on the Broadcast Ownership rules - my prediction is that the FCC wins at least 7-2 and that the long industry nightmare of the Third Circuit ends!"

Likely the two in that 7-2 prediction are Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who seemed most sympathetic to the backers of the Third Circuit smackdown of the Republican FCC's deregulation.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh definitely appeared to be leaning toward the government's argument that the FCC had looked at what info it had, made its best predictive judgment, to which court's generally give deference, and interpreting a broad public interest standard, sufficiently broad that it would be hard to say that interpretation was arbitrary and capricious.

Malcolm Stewart, an attorney in the Solicitor General's Office arguing for the FCC, said that the commission had exercised reasonable judgment in concluding the elimination of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule and other deregulatory changes were in the public interest, which he said was the primary purpose of Congress' mandate that it review its regs every four years; that there was incomplete data on whether eliminating that rule would hurt minority and women ownership; that the FCC had concluded based on the information it had that there would likely not be a negative effect on minority and women ownership; and that absent that, the likely beneficial effect outweighed any speculative harms.

He also argued that competition and diversity of viewpoints were the key goals of structural ownership rules, not their impact on minority or women ownership, and that the goal of Congress in mandating periodic ownership rule reviews was that they not remain on the books due to inertia.

Helgi Walker, representing the National Association of Broadcasters, went further in her arguments than the government, asking that the court resolve the issue of what the statute mandating the quadrennial review actually said, rather than just whether the FCC had made a reasonable judgment based on its reading of the statute.

Broadcasters want the Supreme Court to confirm their interpretation that not only does the FCC not have to include impact on minorities and women in its quadrennial review, but that to do so is beyond the bounds of the statutory mandate.

NAB is not saying minority and women ownership isn't important, or part of the FCC's public interest determination, but that in this instance, as the statute was written, it is not what the FCC is to be looking at,  much less the key factor the court said it was in vacating the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule dereg.

She said that after 17 years and four different attempts to deregulate broadcasting, all smacked down by the same Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the case had finally reached the highest court in the land and it was time for some regulatory—or in this case deregulatory—certainty about the statutory mandate in the quadrennial review. If the court did not provide that guidance, she said, she predicted years more litigation.

In defense of the Third Circuit, Ruthanne Mary Deutsch, representing Prometheus Radio Project, said that the FCC had failed its basic legal requirement to state that it was not considering female and minority ownership or the potential harms the deregulation would cause, and explain why that was the case.

She argued the FCC couldn't explain because it had not really weighed the issue, and for those and more reasons its decision was arbitrary and capricious and the Third Circuit should repeal of the rules be upheld. She said that would allow the FCC's delayed 2018 quadrennial review—on hold pending the resolution of the Supreme Court case—to proceed.

The Justices focused on to what degree the FCC was required to take minority and women into account, if at all, whether not doing so was a change in policy and whether, if so, it needed to explain that change.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who asked numerous questions, focused on the presence of online competition and the FCC argument that that marketplace change was a reason why structural limits on broadcast ownership were less defensible than when the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule went into effect in 1975.

The FCC and NAB both had challenged the Third Circuit repeal, with the cases consolidated in the argument heard Tuesday.

In November 2017, a politically divided FCC voted to eliminate the newspaper-broadcast and the radio-TV cross-ownership rules; allow dual station ownership in markets with fewer than eight independent voices after the duopoly, creating an opportunity for ownership of two of the top four stations in a market on a case-by-case basis (the FCC did not call it a waiver); eliminate attribution of joint sales agreements as ownership; and create an incubator program.

But during oral argument, the only rule change that was discussed was the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule elimination.

The questions the Supremes were asked to resolve, as presented in a document on the Supreme Court web site: "Whether the court of appeals erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the FCC orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency's cross-ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions" and "whether the Commission may repeal or modify media ownership rules that it determines are no longer 'necessary in the public interest as the result of competition' without statistical evidence about the prospective effect of its rule changes on minority and female ownership."

The government (the FCC and Justice) and NAB say yes to both, but had the argument come after the inauguration of Democratic President-Elect Joe Biden, the government would likely not have pressed its appeal given Democrats' historic opposition to broadcast deregulation, though even Democratic FCC chairs have conceded the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule is anachronistic.

Tuesday's virtual oral argument was the first time the Supreme Court has heard a challenge to one of a series of Third Circuit smackdowns of FCC Republican administration broadcast deregulation decisions dating back to 2003, when the FCC under then chairman Michael Powell attempted to relax some ownership restrictions citing changes to the market. 

The FCC is under a congressional directive in the 1996 Telecommunications Act to periodically review its regulations—first biennially, then changed to quadrennially—and repeal or modify any it concludes are not in the public interest. 

But, as the Supreme Court website frames it, the Third Circuit "in a series of three appeals spanning the past 17 years, the same divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has repeatedly vacated the FCC's attempts to reform its ownership rules. The effect of those decisions has been to maintain in effect decades old FCC ownership restrictions that the agency believes to be outmoded."

The most recent Third Circuit decision was based only on "the ground that the agency had not adequately analyzed the potential effect of the regulatory changes on female and minority ownership of broadcast stations."

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will render a decision—it is under no timetable and it could be months—and whether if it upholds the Republican FCC, but without going to the statutory language clarification NAB seeks, a new, Democratic FCC, would restore the regs.

WASHINGTON—NAB is adding its voice in support of the FCC to have the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision regarding media ownership deregulation effort heard by the Supreme Court.

The FCC’s efforts to modernize media ownership rules, which were first proposed in 2017, was stayed by a three-judge panel from the Third Circuit, citing that the proposed changes did not sufficiently consider the impact that the changes could have on minority and female ownership.

Specifically, the FCC’s proposals sought to eliminate the newspaper-broadcast and the radio-TV cross-ownership rules; allow dual station ownership in markets with fewer than eight independent voices after the duopoly, creating an opportunity for ownership of two of the top four stations in a market on a case-by-case basis; eliminate attribution of joint sales agreements as ownership; and create an incubator program.

In its brief, however, the NAB says that there is one key to this case: “Whether under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the Federal Communications Commission may repeal or modify media ownership rules that it determines are no longer ‘necessary in the public interest as the result of competition’ without statistical evidence about the prospective effect of its rules changes on minority and female ownership.” To which the NAB believes the answer is yes.

NAB has said that the Third Circuit Court’s decision is part of a repeated practice to elevate its own policy concerns over the statutory text.

“Due to the same Third Circuit panel’s repeated decisions, ownership rules from decades ago are frozen in place, even as technology ‘has transformed the American people’s consumption of news and information,’” the NAB brief reads. “Those decisions have blocked the ‘iterative process’ designed by Congress to enable the commission to ‘gain experience with its policies so it may assess how its rules function in the marketplace.’ … And, absent this Court’s intervention, the commission will have no choice but to comply with the Third Circuit’s atextual commands in future reviews and will never be able to ‘move on and get it right.’”

NAB concludes that the FCC’s petition to have the decision be reviewed by the Supreme Court should be granted.

The full brief is available online. 

WASHINGTON—It’s 2020, and soon having broadcasters sending paper notifications for station actions may be a thing of the past. In a FCC blog post, Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the commission will vote on whether to eliminate required paper notifications in favor of electronic notifications.

This is part of the FCC’s Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, which aims to update rules and regulations so they better match the current media marketplace. According to Pai, the replacement of “wasteful and costly paper notifications” has been a recurring theme.

As it currently stands, cable and satellite operators are required to provide broadcast TV stations with paper notices before they take certain actions. For cable operators this can be things like commencing service in a market or deleting/repositioning a broadcast station. For satellite providers, this can cover retransmitting certain stations or launching new services.

The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on eliminating paper notifications in July 2019, which Pai said received unanimous support from commenters.

The FCC will officially vote on the rule at its next open meeting on Jan. 30.

The author is with law firm Fletcher, Heald and Hildreth, on whose blog this article originally appeared.

When Ajit Pai took over as chairman of the FCC, it was widely expected that he would take steps to relax existing restrictions on media ownership. The last month, in particular, has seen a flurry of activity on that front. As we reported, the chairman released at the end of October the proposed text of an Order on Reconsideration relaxing or eliminating a number of broadcast ownership rules. That Order on Reconsideration was, as expected, adopted at the FCC’s November meeting in essentially the same form as it was proposed. The chairman days later also released a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking opening a separate proceeding to conduct beginning a “comprehensive review” of the national television ownership cap. That NPRM is due for a vote at the Commission’s Dec. 14 Open Meeting.

The Chairman clearly is interested in making significant changes to the media ownership landscape. What do those changes mean and what can we expect going forward? Read on to find out.

Order on Reconsideration – 2010/2014 Quadrennial Ownership Review

At its Nov. 16 meeting, the commission, on a three-two party-line vote, adopted an Order on Reconsideration that significantly relaxed a number of media ownership rules. This Order brought an end (at least for now) to the commission’s 2010 and 2014 quadrennial reviews of its media ownership rules.

Last September, the commission, under former Chairman Tom Wheeler, had attempted to conclude those reviews with its own Second Report and Order. That decision, at least for the most part, left the media ownership rules unchanged. A number of parties, however, asked the commission to reconsider that decision and, with the change in administration following last November’s elections, has now reconsidered and reversed most of the decisions made in the 2016 Order. As noted above, this Reconsideration Order was essentially the same as the version proposed by the chairman in October, so we will just briefly address the major changes it makes to the media ownership rules when it becomes effective (more on that later).

• Elimination of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. Based in large part on its findings regarding the changes in the overall media landscape since this rule was adopted in 1975, the commission found that prohibiting common ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations is no longer necessary to protect viewpoint diversity or competition—and could, in fact, harm localism. As a result, the commission eliminated any prohibition on newspaper ownership by broadcast station owners.
• Elimination of the radio/television cross-ownership rule. The elimination of this rule was based primarily on two related conclusions. First, the commission found that the record showed that broadcast radio stations, which produce diminishing amounts of local news, no longer contributed to viewpoint diversity enough to justify the rule. This is particularly in light of the increasing contributions to viewpoint diversity from cable, the internet, and other “non-traditional” voices. Second, in light of the fact that the rule already allows significant cross-ownership, and there continue to exist separate television and radio local ownership caps, the commission found that eliminating the rule would not have a significant effect on common ownership.

• Elimination of the “eight voices” test for local television ownership. In the Reconsideration Order, the commission determines that the eight-voices test for local ownership cannot be supported by any evidence in the record. This test prohibited common ownership of two television stations unless at least eight independent television station owners remained in the market. Indeed, the Reconsideration Order questions whether there has ever been sufficient evidence to support drawing a line at eight voices remaining in a market, or at any other specific number. Finding that the rule may in fact prevent combinations that would enhance localism, particularly in small and mid-sized markets,the commission eliminated the eight-voices test. With elimination of this portion of the rule, duopolies will now be allowed in all markets both stations are not among the top-four rated stations.
• Relaxation of the top-four restriction on television duopolies. The Reconsideration Order retains, at least formally, the existing prohibition on common ownership of two of the four most highly-rated stations in a market (generally the ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC affiliates). The commission, however, also adopts a policy that will allow, on a case-by-case basis, waivers of the top four prohibition. The Reconsideration Order does not adopt a rigid set of criteria for such waivers, but does identify some of the factors it will consider in granting waivers. These factors include, among others: the stations’ ratings and revenue share (from both advertising and retransmission consent fees) in the market; other market characteristics, such as the existence of strong competitors outside the top-four; and likely effects on programming serving local needs and interests. Waiver requests should be based on data covering a “substantial period,” which the commission suggests could be around three years, to minimize the impact of short-term changes.
• Elimination of attribution of joint sales agreements (JSAs). The commission finds that there was not sufficient evidence in 2014 to support making JSAs attributable to the overall ownership calculations, nor is there such evidence now. Concluding that the record does not show that JSAs allow one station to exert undue influence over the operation of a second station, they will no longer be treated as attributable.
• Minimal relaxation of the local radio ownership rule regarding embedded markets. The Reconsideration Order largely leaves the local radio ownership rule untouched with one small exception. Currently, a number of radio markets (which are defined in most cases by Nielsen ratings information) include embedded submarkets. Any combination in such markets must show compliance with the rule in the larger market and in each embedded market. Recognizing that this may produce unintended consequences, at least in the Washington D.C. and New York markets, each of which contains multiple, non-contiguous embedded markets, the Reconsideration Order adopts a presumption in favor of certain waivers in those markets.
• Establishment of a diversity/incubator program. The Reconsideration Order also includes a section that serves as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the establishment of some type of incubator program to encourage greater diversity in media ownership. Such a program, as envisioned by the NPRM, would work by granting waivers of the ownership rules to applicants who establish programs to enhance broadcast ownership by new and diverse entrants. Finding that such a program may be desirable in the abstract, the commission requests comment on how any such program should be structured and implemented to serve its goals effective and comply with legal requirements.

Interested parties are now waiting for the Reconsideration Order to be published in the Federal Register. When that happens, a shot clock will begin for the filing of court appeals. It seems almost certain that such appeals will be filed by the public interest groups that have long opposed media ownership deregulation. Portions of the Reconsideration Order may also be appealed by other parties. This could include, for example, the waiver policy for top-four combinations in television, which has been criticized by the cable industry.

When any such appeals are filed, it is likely that they will include a request to stay the effectiveness of the rules. As in the case of the reinstatement of the UHF discount earlier this year, courts are generally reluctant to grant stays, although the potential impact of these rules, and the difficulty in unwinding combinations in the event they are ultimately overturned, may change a court’s calculus somewhat. If the rules are stayed, it may be an extremely long time before they go into effect.

Whenever the rules do go into effect, it will also take some time for the commission to flesh out the parameters of its top-four waiver policy. As with any such case-by-case policy, the exact nature of policy will depend on the filing, and resolution, of specific requests for waiver. , Given that it would include combinations of top-four rated stations in a number of markets, it is easy to imagine that the pending Sinclair-Tribune merger will be the first “test-case” of the new policy. If so, the resolution of any such waiver requests is itself certain to be controversial and could, potentially, lead to further appeals to the courts. In any event, this relaxation may not trigger an immediate flood of waiver requests, as some potential applicants may decide to wait for additional clarity as to how those requests will be evaluated.

If you’re left feeling unsatisfied by this wave of deregulation (as many radio licensees may be), it is worth remembering that the next quadrennial review begins in 2018. As a result, all of the commission’s media ownership rules (except, as explained later, the national television ownership cap) will once again be subject to further review.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – National Ownership Cap

Just days after the commission adopted the Reconsideration Order, Chairman Pai released the proposed text of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the commission’s national television ownership cap. If adopted, this would continue the chairman’s push to deregulate television ownership. The national ownership cap currently prevents any entity from owning or controlling television stations that reach more than 39 percent of the television households in the country. (Although, with the reinstatement of the UHF discount, the actual percent of households reached may be substantially higher.)

As the chairman promised to do in reinstating the UHF discount back in April, the NPRM begins a “broad review” of the national ownership cap. The NPRM requests comment on whether the commission has the legal authority to modify or eliminate the 39 percent cap at all. This may prove perhaps the most interesting question in this proceeding.

Unlike many of the specific limits set forth in the commission’s rules, the 39 percent cap was explicitly established by Congress in 2004 and was removed from review in the quadrennial ownership reviews. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the commission cannot review it at is prohibited from reviewing it at all, or just cannot do so in the context of the quadrennial reviews.

While the NPRM certainly suggests that the commission has at least tentatively concluded that it has the authority to review the national ownership cap, Commissioner O’Reilly (one of the two other Republican votes Chairman Pai will almost certainly need to adopt any change) has clearly indicated in the past that he disagrees. In his dissent to the Wheeler Commission’s 2016 decision to eliminate the UHF discount, he “reject[ed] the assertion that the Commission has authority to modify the National Television Ownership Rule in any way.” Nevertheless, Commissioner O’Reilly has indicated that he supports asking the question again now in the NPRM. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the coming months.

Assuming the commission has the authority to modify the national ownership cap, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the rule should be modified or eliminated in light of the changes in the media landscape since 2004. This includes the proliferation of non-broadcast programming, changes in the network-affiliate relationship, and consolidation among MVPDs, among other things. The NPRM also seeks comment on how compliance with any modified cap (or the existing 39 percent cap, if it is retained) should be calculated, including whether the UHF discount should be modified or eliminated. Finally, the NPRM asks how any existing ownership combinations should be grandfathered if any changes to the rules make them non-compliant.

Assuming it is adopted at the commission’s December meeting, comments would be due 30 days after Federal Register publication, and reply comments 30 days after that. Absent any extension of those deadlines, the comment cycle could reasonably be expected to close by late in the first quarter of 2018, meaning a potential decision could come during the second quarter of the year. Any such decision, assuming the chairman is able to garner three votes, will almost certainly be appealed. This is particularly likely here in light of the rather thorny legal questions surrounding the commission’s authority in this area.

Taken as a whole, it seems clear that Chairman Pai is moving with significant speed to adopt a deregulatory agenda. Of course, this should not really come as a great surprise, since he has long been an outspoken advocate of deregulation.

The ultimate outcome of these efforts remains uncertain, and will almost certainly be decided in the courts. 

WASHINGTON—Deregulation proposals that were hinted at from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on Oct. 25 will be made official Thursday, Oct. 26. The proposal would eliminate the newspaper-broadcast crossownership rule and the radio-TV crossownership rule; allow for dual station ownership in markets with fewer than eight independent voices after the duopoly; eliminates attribution of joint sales agreements as ownership; and creates an incubator program. Many broadcasters are celebrating the proposal, while some Hill Democrats call it a gift to the Sinclair-Tribune potential merger. The item is scheduled for a vote on Nov. 16.

Read the full story on TVT’s sister publication B&C.