Low-power TV broadcasters told the FCC last week that while they support a transition from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0, they don’t support Sinclair’s push for a coordinated, nationwide transition that would include them

In a letter to the FCC, the Low Power Television Broadcasters Association (“LPTVBA”), addressed the Commission's current NPRM to accelerate the transition to ATSC 3.0.

Broadcasters, led by the NAB have proposed a nationwide shutdown of 1.0 (aka “sunset”) at the end of 2028 in the top 55 U.S. markets with the remaining markets sunsetting 1.0 at the end of 2030. Those dates were proposed nearly two years ago and as the commission has delayed a final decision, it’s now highly unlikely that those deadlines will hold.

There are approximately 1,760 licensed Low Power Television (LPTV) stations and 397 licensed Class A television stations in the United States. LPTVA has been a strong advocate for allowing broadcasters to transmit 5G broadcast as an alternative to ATSC 3.0, an idea that has not set well with broadcasters, particularly Sinclair Senior Vice President of Technology Mark Aitken, who says 5G can be transmitted via 3.0.

The LPTVA, which said it supports all broadcast standards, told the FCC that individual LPTV stations should decide for themselves on which standard would best serve its viewers.

"If full-power stations wish to mandate a standard for full-power television, we stand behind the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB),” LPVTA President Frank Copsidas wrote. “However, we do not believe Class A stations should be included in any such request, as they are LPTV at heart with more regulatory requirements and contour protection, but not with all the benefits of full power. LPTVBA is strongly opposed to any mandate for translators, LPTV, or Class A stations.”

“In its February 26, 2025 Petition for Rulemaking filed with the FCC in GN Docket No. 16-142 seeking a mandatory transition to ATSC 3.0, the NAB explicitly stated that it ‘does not recommend subjecting low power television stations or television translator stations to any requirement to transition to ATSC 3.0,’’ he added.

Copsidas said Sinclair’s call for a coordinated, organized nationwide transition and a sunset of ATSC 1.0 signals, “while consistent with its comments in this proceeding, must not be construed or applied in a manner that imposes a mandatory transition or sunset on LPTV, Class A, or translator stations.

Copsidas asked the FCC to allow LPTV broadcasters more flexibility in choosing their own path.

“LPTV stations will continue to serve all the broadcast television viewers left behind by ATSC 3.0, which currently comprises 85-90% of television viewers,” he said. “Maintaining ATSC 1.0 service on LPTV channels ensures that free, over-the-air local television remains universally available during and after any full-power transition, protectin

WASHINGTON—The Advanced Warning and Response Network Alliance has told the FCC that Silicondust’s suggestion to disable ATSC 3.0 content security before and during the Nov. 17 nationwide Emergency Alert System test “is inappropriate” and would create “artificial test conditions.”

In an Oct. 26 letter to the agency, Silicondust accused broadcasters of preventing some ATSC 3.0 (NextGen TV) viewers—specifically owners of its HDHomeRun and HDHomeRun Flex set-top boxes—from receiving the EAS test transmission. At issue is the inability of the HDHomeRun products to decode ATSC 3.0 Security Authority (A3SA) protected content.

In a Nov. 1 ex parte filing, however, AWARN Alliance Executive Director Dave Arland told the Federal Communications Commission the test should go forward as planned to “ensure that signals are properly transmitted and then received and decoded for devices designed to work with protected broadcasts.”

Disabling content protection will only prove “that a few thousand set-top receivers are not properly equipped” to receive and make use of all ATSC 3.0 capabilities, Arland said, including “decoding content protection that was designed from the beginning as a key feature of the standard to protect broadcast signals from illicit distribution.”

The alliance reminded the agency that 18 million 3.0 TV receivers and set-top boxes verified for content security can potentially receive and decode the EAS test.

“The AWARN Alliance expects that EAS signaling will be properly broadcast in both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 transmissions, with easy reception by ATSC 1.0 televisions and set-top receivers and by NextGen TV-certified and A3SA-security verified consumer receivers,” it said.

Disabling A3SA encryption for the test would “obscure” the performance of EAS under normal operating conditions and interfere with typical broadcast operations, it said.

In its Oct. 26 letter to the FCC, Silicondust asserted that 3.0’s content protection creates a “private access barrier.” The alliance countered, saying protected 3.0 content is no different than protected broadcasts distributed via cable, satellite and telco.

“Obviously, Silicondust devices that cannot decode a protected ATSC 3.0 signal will receive and display nothing for viewers (whom, we would underscore, won’t even be watching the protected channels, anyway, during the National EAS Test or afterwards),” the alliance said.

Disabling 3.0 content protection would place an economic and operational burden on broadcasters and offer no lasting public safety benefits, it said.

Silicondust has not shown that broadcasters are failing to meet their EAS obligations, AWARN concluded, adding, “One receiver’s inability to decode protected ATSC 3.0 programming does not, by itself, establish a failure to transmit a required emergency message.”

“The rules do not require broadcasters to modify otherwise lawful transmission configurations to accommodate receivers unable to decode protected services,” it said.

WASHINGTON—A group of 21 U.S. House Democrats have written a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas), urging that any new Republican nominee to the Federal Communications Commission be paired with the renomination of Commissioner Anna Gomez.

“The commission functions as intended only when both parties have a seat at the table,” the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee wrote on Oct. 29. “Confirming an additional Republican nominee without also securing continued Democratic representation would upset that balance.”

Gomez currently serves as the lone Democrat on the three-member commission. Her term expired July 1, but under the Communications Act, a sitting commissioner may legally remain in office until the expiration of the following congressional session or until a successor is confirmed.

Timeline
In August, President Donald Trump nominated Republican Danielle Thumann-Severs to complete a five-year term as commissioner.

Thumann-Severs has not yet been confirmed, with reports stating she is currently on maternity leave. She was selected to fill the seat vacated by Republican Nathan Simington, who resigned in July 2025. Her confirmation would give Republicans a 3–1 majority at the FCC.

Republican Olivia Trusty, the third commissioner currently serving with Chairman Brendan Carr and Gomez, was confirmed by the Senate in June 2025. The FCC requires a minimum of three commissioners to maintain a quorum to conduct official business.

Civil-rights groups asked Cruz and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to delay action until Gomez is renominated with Thumann-Severs, allowing both nominees to move through the confirmation process together as a package in accordance with traditional congressional practice.

Both Sides
In the letter, the members of the House committee praised Gomez for her understanding of the FCC’s statutory responsibilities and her track record of working across the aisle.

“Commissioner Gomez has shown the experience and judgment to continue that work,” the letter concluded. “We therefore ask that the Senate pair any new Republican nominee with her renomination to a full term, consistent with the bipartisan design Congress built into this agency.”

The signers of the letter were:

• Doris O. Matsui (D-Calif.)
• Jennifer L. McClellan (D-Va.)
• Yvette D. Clarke (D-N.Y.)
• Kathy Castor (D-Fla.)
• Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)
• Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
• Greg Landsman (D-Ohio)
• Marc A. Veasey (D-Texas)
• Lori Trahan (D-Mass.)
• Troy A. Carter, Sr. (D-La.)
• Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas)
• Robin L. Kelly (D-Ill.)
• Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.)
• Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.)
• Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
• Darren Soto (D-Fla.)
• Paul D. Tonko (D-N.Y.)
• Scott H. Peters (D-Calif.)
• Raul Ruiz, M.D. (D-Calif.)
• Robert J. Menendez (D-N.J.)
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)

In a meeting with the FCC this week, a group of TV and radio executives, along with representatives from the National Association of Broadcasters, asked commission officials to allow broadcasters to voluntarily use software-based systems for emergency alerting, noting that a software-based approach offers more flexibility than traditional methods and warning the commission that access to vendors offering new EAS technology has dwindled.

The group included Steve Shultis of New York Public Radio (NYPR), Roswell Clark of Cox Media Group, Dan Mettler and Sara Morris of iHeart Media, Rob Bertand of Inrush Broadcast Services, William Harrison of WETA (FM), Mike DePolo of Urban One, Inc., and Larry Walke Associate General Counsel Legal and Regulatory Affairs with the NAB.

In their meeting with Keelin Ferris in Chairman Carr’s office, the group discussed the commission’s current Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was approved in June. They focused on the FCC’s proposal to allow the use of software-based encoder/decoder technology instead of a legacy physical hardware device to process Emergency Alert System messages.

They noted that EAS is one of the last remaining elements of a modern broadcast air chain that requires a physical hardware device, and described how a software-based model would allow broadcasters to optimize integration of EAS into their system. The group highlighted broad support for a software option from TV and radio broadcasters, the cable industry, an EAS vendor, accessibility groups, and other stakeholders.

They emphasized that adopting this approach would be voluntary, and expected that many EAS Participants will continue using their existing EAS equipment for the foreseeable future, "perhaps until their device malfunctions or some technical or policy development makes it worthwhile to explore a software option," they said.

The group said a software EAS model would allow broadcasters to implement system repairs and updates through software patches instead of requiring an engineer to manually modify every device or ship a device to a manufacturer. A software model would improve EAS readiness by allowing the immediate failover to a redundant, geographically diverse EAS system if a disaster disrupts EAS at a station’s studio or transmitter, they added.

Cybersecurity would not be a concern within a software-based EAS model beyond those already relevant to existing EAS equipment. They also told officials that the marketplace for new EAS equipment has shrunk to only one major vendor and that the EAS provider for the vast majority of radio stations is no longer making hardware devices, further increasing the urgency for a reliable software option.

The group also told officials that a new software-specific certification requirement was not needed but that they would support a process similar to that used for existing equipment, including rigorous FEMA IPAWS conformity testing and extensive supporting documentation.

They also expressed concern about the FCC’s proposed timeline for implementation of new rules, adding that a 12 month grace period would cause an unnecessary delay.

“If a software product has been sufficiently tested and certified, there is no compelling reason to make EAS Participants wait to leverage the advantages of a software EAS approach,” Walke said. “In fact, at least one leading EAS provider has already partnered with a large provider of audio systems and services to broadcasters to demonstrate the functionality of a prototype software EAS model. Given this progress, the group does not believe that a 12-month (or longer) delay is needed before allowing entities to submit authorization applications.”

WASHINGTON—A pair of Federal Communications Commission actions today aim to open up spectrum for greater use—one via a new auction to promote advanced communication services and another ending restrictions that prevent drones from operating in 50 MHz of low-band spectrum in the 800-MHz band.

The new spectrum auction covers 25 MHz of midband spectrum in the 1,675-1,695 MHz and 2,020-2,025 MHz bands—bandwidth generally used for meteorological data and federal space operations. The auction aims to make the spectrum available for advanced applications, including direct-to-device, flexible use and terrestrial networks like 5G.

This vote begins the auction process and follows the completion of a $3.5 billion auction of AWS-3 inventory spectrum. It precedes a planned auction of 160 MHz of Upper C-band spectrum by July 2027. The Trump administration plans to make up to 400 MHz of spectrum available for commercial use through auction by 2028, including spectrum in the 2.7 GHz and 7 GHz bands.

The notice of proposed rulemaking would reallocate the 1,675–1,695 MHz band on a co-primary basis for commercial fixed and mobile services, while adding a secondary (noninterference) allocation for mobile satellite services providing domestic supplemental coverage from space (SCS). It would also add a secondary SCS allocation in the 2,020–2,025 MHz band. The move expands on a 2019 proposal to share the 1,675–1,680 MHz portion between incumbent federal operations and commercial wireless providers.

The FCC action to unlock the 800 MHz cellular band for drone command, control, communications and payload operations addresses a decades-old restriction on the use of the band for airborne cellular service. The agency said it is no longer necessary to apply that restriction to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) because modern wireless networks employ advanced technologies to prevent such interference.

The restriction stems from a 1991 prohibition on airborne use to minimize the risk of interference to terrestrial networks from cellphones on planes. However, it also impinged upon drone operations. The agency’s vote undoes that by allowing drone operations in the band.

Nexstar has reached an agreement with the FCC to settle several violations that will wind up costing the station group $80,500.

The fine involved several incidents, involving kidvid, political advertising and modification filings.

The kidvid violations were a holdover from 2018 when Tribune stations broke federal rules on broadcasting commercials during children’s TV programs in 2018. Nexstar acquired Tribune Media in 2019.

In 2018, during episodes of “Team Hot Wheels,” some Tribune stations broadcast spots for the Hot Wheels Super Ultimate Garage toy. Airing the commercials, which appeared nearly a dozen times during eight episodes, is a violation of FCC rules that limit commercial advertising during children’s programming to 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays, as well as rules airing commercials tied to the program being aired.

In 2022, the FCC proposed a fine of $182,000, and issued a forfeiture in 2024; Nexstar followed up by requesting a reconsideration. This week’s notice represents the final agreement ending the dispute.

Stations affected include:

• KDVR (Channel 31, Fox, Denver)
• KFCT (Channel 22, Fox, Fort Collins)
• KIAH (Channel 39, CW, Houston)
• KTLA (Channel 5, CW), Los Angeles
• KTXL (Channel 40, Fox, Sacramento
• WGN-TV (Channel 9, Independent, Chicago)
• WGNO (Channel 26, ABC, New Orleans)
• WDAF-TV (Channel 4, Fox, Kansas City)

The fine also addresses political advertising rules. The FCC found that 43 Nexstar TV stations didn’t make certain political advertising files available for public inspection in a timely manner, violating federal rules that mandate that such information be made publicly “as soon as possible” in the commission’s words.

The third incident involved construction permits for modifications to three Nexstar stations in Oklahoma City, Rock Island, Ill. and Bloomington, Utah. Nexstar was accused of missing deadlines to submit license to cover applications. The company blamed administrative oversight and the FCC granted Nexstar’s waiver requests, reinstated the construction permits, and granted the license and renewal applications.

In addition to paying the fine, Nexstar agreed to designate an internal Compliance Officer reporting to executive management and create compliance manuals and mandatory annual training for all relevant master control, programming, and political advertising employees.

It also agreed to appoint public-facing Points of Contact to handle complaints and self-report any new violations to the FCC within 10 business days under penalty of perjury.

WASHINGTON—Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has chosen Commissioner Olivia Trusty to lead the FCC’s rollout and implementation of the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark program.

Working with the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Trusty will coordinate efforts as the voluntary cybersecurity labeling initiative moves toward commercial deployment, according to an FCC release.

The program is intended to help consumers identify smart products that meet baseline cybersecurity standards, covering Internet of Things devices such as connected door locks, garage-door openers, security systems and smart lighting.

“What’s clear is that the average shopper cannot be expected to examine a product’s software or investigate its security update practices before buying it,” Trusty said during a keynote Wednesday at the Consumer Technology Association Innovation House event.

These devices offer convenience, but as the FCC’s website on the program explained, IoT products can be susceptible to a range of security vulnerabilities.

Under the initiative, participating products will feature a logo with a scannable QR code, allowing shoppers to review product security details, support windows and data privacy disclosures from a smartphone.

“This effort will advance our nation’s security and provide consumers with greater confidence when they bring connected products and devices into their homes,” Carr said.

The commission compared the initiative to the Energy Star program, believing that clear labeling will educate the public while incentivizing manufacturers to build more secure consumer hardware.

The U.S. Cyber Trust Mark labeling program excludes several equipment categories:

• Medical devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
• Motor vehicles and equipment regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
• Wired-only devices.
• Products intended primarily for industrial control, manufacturing or enterprise environments.
• Equipment listed on the FCC covered list or manufactured by covered entities.
• IoT products from entities subject to national security restrictions or banned from federal procurement.

The FCC plans to announce an official opening date for product applications once administrative systems are finalized.

This article initially appeared on Radio World, sister brand to TV Tech.

WASHINGTON—SiliconDust, maker of the HDHomeRun and NextGen TV-capable HDHomeRun Flex and Flex 4K set-top boxes, is doubling down on its request to the FCC that station groups remove digital rights management (DRM) encryption before and during the Nov. 17 nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS).

In an Oct. 26 response to the National Association of Broadcasters’ ex parte filing with the Federal Communications Commissioner opposing the association's request, the company accused broadcasters of preventing viewers of ATSC 3.0 (aka NextGen TV) from receiving the EAS test, the first such nationwide test in three years.

“Broadcasters who choose to use encryption place EAS messages behind a private access barrier, preventing viewers with otherwise-capable ATSC 3.0 receivers from seeing or hearing emergency alerts on those services,” the company said in its letter to the FCC.

Congress directed that the public warning system be designed to provide alerts to the largest portion of the affected population that is feasible, SiliconDust told the agency.

HDHomeRun Flex and Flex 4K are unable to decode ATSC 3.0 DRM encryption due to the refusal of the ATSC 3.0 Security Authority (A3SA) to certify the devices.

In an Oct. 20 letter to the FCC, NAB said the company’s request to turn off DRM before and during the test “would cut against” its purpose, which the FCC has said is to “assess the EAS ‘from top-to-bottom,’ from origination of an alert through reception by the public, and should replicate actual national alert conditions as closely as possible.”

Asking broadcasters to turn off encryption before and during the test doesn’t replicate how “stations would operate during an actual emergency,” NAB said.

In its response, SiliconDust countered NAB’s assertion, saying the association's argument “treats a known failure of broadcast emergency alert delivery as something to preserve rather than correct."

Identifying the barrier to EAS reception prior to the test should be done to remove the problem “while there is still time,” SiliconDust said.

“SiliconDust limited its request to the period surrounding the nationwide test,” the company said. “This allows broadcasters to address a known barrier to emergency alert delivery without requiring an immediate, permanent decision about encryption of ATSC 3.0 service.”

The company told the FCC that broadcasters have advanced notice of the “access barrier,” a way to remove it and time to act. “A station that nevertheless retains DRM encryption must be prepared to explain why it knowingly maintains a restriction that prevents otherwise-capable receivers from presenting emergency information,” SiliconDust said.

WASHINGTON—Warning of federal overreach ahead of the midterms, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez has called on National Association of Broadcasters President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt to alert radio and TV stations to threats surrounding election poll coverage.

Gomez, the lone Democrat on the three-person commission, did not mince words about her level of concern. (To read her letter to LeGeyt, click here.)

“This administration is running a coordinated, government-wide effort to reshape the media into its sanctioned messenger, and the Federal Communications Commission has become one of its most active instruments,” Gomez wrote to LeGeyt.

As a result, Gomez chose to write to NAB, explaining that the association has the nationwide scope to warn radio and TV stations about what she perceives as a grave threat heading into the midterm elections.

‘Fake Polls’ Warning
On Wednesday, Federal Communications Chair Brendan Carr took to social media to warn broadcasters about reporting on what he deemed “fake” polling data.

“During this election season, there has been a significant surge in entirely fake polls and suppression polls designed to do nothing more than interfere with the regular functioning of the electoral process and alter the normal patterns of voter turnout and enthusiasm,” Carr said in a post on X.

Carr, a Republican, wrote that the FCC takes such issues seriously and that broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their licenses from engaging in “news distortion” or promoting “broadcast hoaxes.”

But citing the FCC’s own legal standards, Gomez argued that enforcing the news distortion policy requires proof that a licensee intentionally fabricated or distorted news coverage of a major event. Courts, according to Gomez, have consistently distinguished between deliberate deception and simple inaccuracies, journalistic errors or editorial differences of opinion.

She also argued that the broadcast hoax rule carries a strict threshold, applying only when a station knowingly airs false reports concerning a crime or catastrophe that inflict immediate and substantial public harm.

“Absent that level of clear evidence, the commission has no authority to act,” Gomez wrote.

Tempered Response
Gomez felt the letter to LeGeyt was needed in part because many NAB member stations lack the legal resources to contest federal inquiries independently ahead of upcoming midterm elections.

While she expressed gratitude for NAB’s pushback against the commission’s early license-renewal inquiries, Gomez feels the overall response from NAB and other lobbyists have not yet matched the scale of the regulatory threats.

She asserted that NAB members need to hear such messaging directly from LeGeyt as the association’s leading voice.

“An industry confronting a coordinated effort to turn licensing authority into leverage over election-year coverage needs more than a couple of tempered statements,” Gomez wrote.

In a statement following the letter, LeGeyt said that NAB will continue working with Gomez and other policymakers to protect the rights of broadcasters “and strengthen local stations’ ability to deliver trusted news and information to the communities they serve.”

“We appreciate Commissioner Gomez’s recognition of the value of local broadcasters and her commitment to the First Amendment principles that underpin a free press,” LeGeyt said.

Gomez added that she would welcome the opportunity to work directly with NAB to ensure its membership receives accurate information on what the law requires.

Gomez added that she would welcome the opportunity to work directly with NAB to ensure its membership receives accurate information on what the law requires.

Equal Time and Ad Rates
In additional examples in her letter, Gomez argued the commission is twisting the equal opportunities rule into a weapon. Section 315 of the Communications Act requires a broadcaster to offer equal time to a candidate’s opponents.

However, Gomez pointed to Congress’ built-in exemption for bona fide news interview programs, which has been cited on several occasions, including in a 2006 FCC ruling denying a Democratic gubernatorial candidate equal time after his Republican opponent, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, appeared on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.”

Gomez also referenced filings by ABC’s parent company, The Walt Disney Co., alleging the Media Bureau revised that guidance to manufacture legal vulnerability over reporting the administration disliked.

In addition, she argued that FCC staff unilaterally extended the lowest unit charge, a statutory discount reserved for federal candidates.

The Media Bureau issued a public notice regarding changes to the lowest unit charge on March 30. Following a challenge filed by four Democratic congressional candidates, the Supreme Court issued a stay on Sept. 4.

“Almost overnight, that same discount became available to joint fundraising committees and coordinated party advertising campaigns for the first time,” Gomez explained.

Gomez believes the move results in a fire sale on ad inventory that could otherwise help stations grow revenue during a competitive political season heading into the midterms.

This story initially ran in Radio World, sister brand to TV Tech.

The chairman of the FCC on Wednesday took to social media to warn broadcasters about reporting on what he termed as “fake” polling data.

Carr echoed President Trump who labels anything he disagrees with as “fake,” which in this case seems to refer to polls showing widespread disapproval of his policies. The latest poll from Reuters/Ipsos shows the president at 31% approval while the latest Washington Post–ABC News–Ipsos poll has Trump at 33% approval.

Carr accused broadcasters of emphasizing polls that show Trump in an unfavorable light.

"During this election season, there has been a significant surge in entirely Fake Polls and Suppression Polls designed to do nothing more than interfere with the regular functioning of the electoral process and alter the normal patterns of voter turnout and enthusiasm," Carr said in a Twitter post. “Many journalists and broadcasters have been amplifying or airing these Polls without regard to basic journalistic ethics and without informing the public that those Polls lack a scientific, accurate, or even real basis."

Adding that “the FCC takes these issues seriously,” Carr said that “broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in News Distortion or promoting Broadcast Hoaxes. It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations. After all, the country benefits greatly when Americans can trust and rely on the media to report the news fairly and accurately."

The chairman urged broadcasters to add context to their reports if they want to avoid trouble with the FCC.

“Broadcasters are advised to avoid engaging in News Distortions or running Broadcast Hoaxes by airing Polls that would violate their regulatory obligations,” he said. “If broadcasters believe they should provide their viewers with additional context and information about Polls they have covered, they can now take those actions consistent with FCC regulations."

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez responded by acknowledging that “pollsters who intentionally mislead the public should answer for it,” but added that “broadcasters who report publicly available polling data should never be punished when a poll is wrong.”

“FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith,” she added.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of high-ranking former FCC officials released a statement condemning Carr's threats. Many of the signatories previously petitioned the FCC to rescind the news distortion policy, warning that it violates the First Amendment and chills press freedom. Signers include Reagan FCC Chair Mark Fowler, Obama FCC Chair Tom Wheeler, and Clinton-appointed FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani:

"FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s threat against broadcasters over their reporting on political polls is yet another truly outrageous attempt to censor and control the information available to Americans as they prepare to vote.  

"We have watched with growing alarm as Chair Carr has unleashed a campaign of intimidation and retaliation against journalists to chill speech the administration dislikes. Carr is now seizing on reports about fabricated political polling as an excuse to once again try to scare broadcasters into self-censorship. 

"Good-faith reporting on public polls — even ones that turn out to be made up — is not a violation of the FCC’s news distortion or hoax rules. And the FCC has zero authority to dictate editorial decisions. 

"Carr’s threats to misuse the news distortion policy are dangerous and unconstitutional. A group of us urged the FCC to rescind the policy to prevent exactly this kind of abuse.

"The intimidation we are now seeing from Brendan Carr is part of an accelerating White House strategy to tilt the electoral playing field in the President’s favor and deny election results that don’t go his way. Making news outlets think twice before reporting on public polling is part of that effort. When its preferred candidates lose, the administration wants to be able to say that the results make no sense. Airing polls that show the electorate tilting away from the President’s party makes that harder.

"So make no mistake: this is a direct attack on free and fair elections, which is especially concerning in the days and weeks when Americans are heading to the polls."

This article was updated on Oct. 22 to add the bipartisan statement.

When the Federal Emergency Management Agency triggers a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System at 2:20 p.m. Eastern Time on Nov. 17, broadcasters should be ready.

That means being able to receive the alert message and retransmit it at once, FEMA officials say.

It will be the first nationwide in three years.

In a webinar previewing the test, FEMA stressed that broadcasters should verify their monitoring sources, CAP connectivity, filters, software, audio levels and immediate NPT relays settings ahead of time.

FEMA, in coordination with the FCC, will originate the test through the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), using the event code for a Nationwide Test of the EAS (NPT). It says the Common Alerting Protocol message will be delivered in both English and Spanish.

FEMA outlined the “test logistics and mechanics” of the nationwide test and provided best practices to help broadcasters.

The webinar was hosted by Al Kenyon, IPAWS customer support branch chief, and Jeff Hugabonne, chair of the Connecticut SECC.

The goal of the test, Kenyon said, is to “validate” the nationwide alerting infrastructure while ensuring that the public understands exactly what they are hearing and seeing.

“The nationwide test is a proxy, if you will, for an EAN, and it functions as an overall system-wide proof of performance, and that’s representative of how successful an EAN would be in messaging the public. So needless to say, a nationwide message, were one to be initiated, is extremely urgent for the public to receive rapidly,” he said.

Hugabonne said the most effective measure of readiness for broadcasters can be found in a station’s equipment logs in the form of other tests.

“Those readiness indicators include your weekly cap tests, over-the-air monitoring assignments, equipment logs, recorded audio-all of that provides a clear picture of whether your station is prepared,” Hugabonne said. “Are you receiving those?”

He continued: “That weekly CAP test is especially important for this next nationwide test coming up. If you’re consistently receiving it, your CAP connection is likely healthy. Missing CAP tests? You’re definitely going to want to investigate those.”

He said occasional misses might indicate intermittent connectivity or configuration issues. “You can use the RWT and RMT as a kind of early warning system to find out how to correct any issues.”

However, a successful log entry can create a bit of false confidence for broadcasters, Hugabonne continued. “Your log may show that it has received an event, but the alert could be noisy, distorted, low and level, or otherwise unusable. So the best practice is to listen to those recorded MP3s,” he recommended.

“Take a few minutes during your log review and check for hum, check for distortion, static, weak signal. If levels are too high, too low, treat those as issues that need to be fixed. A logged event isn’t the finish line. A good intelligible alert is,” he said during the webinar.

These readiness principles apply regardless of the make and model of your EAS equipment, Hugabonne said. “Verify that the unit is current, connected, correctly filtered and actively monitoring sources and configured for immediate NPT relay.”

The presentation noted that differences in CAP polling times might cause a broadcast station to receive the alert over the air rather than from FEMA’s CAP feed. “There are polling intervals from when alerts are posted and when your device pulls it down. That’s not a flaw,” Kenyon said. “It’s just the way it works. It’s that redundant capability kicking in.”

One of the strengths of EAS is that it was designed to function in both normal and degraded operating conditions, Kenyon said. This keeps in place a broadcast-based backup pathway that doesn’t depend on internet connectivity.

“If connectivity to IPAWS is disrupted during an outage, a cyber incident, power disruption or equipment issue, EAS can fail back to the signed over-the-air monitoring sources,” he said.

Kenyon reminded broadcasters they must also comply with the FCC’s EAS Test Reporting System or ETRS. EAS participants must submit their annual ETRS Form One for this year no later than Oct. 30. Forms Two and Three will be available in the system on Nov. 17, at the time of the initiation of the 2026 nationwide test.

ETRS Form Two will then be due within 48 hours.

“Form Three requires additional post-test information —some qualitative information and any comments you might have about the test quality and challenges you might have experienced,” Kenyon said. “The FCC reviews those answers. We review those answers, and we use that to try and improve the system going forward, so fill out those questions.”

ETRS Form Three with post-test data must be submitted within 45 days, on or before Jan. 4, 2027.

The presenters said that live monitoring of the nationwide test would be a “good idea” but acknowledged that it might be a challenge where resources are limited.

“If possible, have a station engineer or designated operator available to monitor the test in real time. That’ll allow you to answer the questions that that come in on FCC ETRS Form Three regarding the qualitative and quantitative aspects of carrying the test, you’ll be able to observe it firsthand and be able to properly answer those questions,” Kenyon said.

The November test is EAS only, meaning it has no Wireless Emergency Alert component. It should last about a minute, according to FEMA officials. It will state clearly that it is a test and that no action is required by the public.

Should a major incident require postponement of the November test, the backup date is Dec. 3, 2027.

This article originally appeared on TV Tech sister brand Radio World.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that reduced broadcast political ad rates two months prior to a general election should apply to more than just the candidates and extend to political parties and joint fundraising committees.

The 7-2 decision came after Democrats challenged a new interpretation of the rules by the FCC that expanded the purview of a federal law that mandates broadcasters offer their lowest available ad rates to campaigns in the 60 days before a general election.

The ruling overturns a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which voted 2-1 to force the commission to decide on a challenge from the Democratic party in a timely manner, giving the commission until Oct. 9. Roberts halted the deadline to give the court time to decide.

Although the ruling applies to both parties, the Trump administration believes that expanding eligibility for the lower political ad rates will give Republicans a financial advantage in the mid-terms, now less than three weeks away.

In their ruling, the justices said the lower court's decision to force the FCC’s hand was “inappropriate under the circumstances.”

“Our system of separation of powers does not allow the Judiciary to meddle in ‘the workings of a coordinate branch of the Government’ in this manner,” they wrote.

This marks the second time SCOTUS has ruled on the issue, denying a challenge from Democrats in September saying that the parties had jumped the gun and sued too early.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented but did not give a reason why.

Got questions about the upcoming national periodic EAS test? FEMA has scheduled two webinars to help.

The first will be offered this Friday, Oct. 16, from 11 a.m. to noon Eastern time. The second is Tuesday Oct. 20 from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. ET.

The two webinars will have the same content. The national test itself takes place on Nov. 17.

According to a post shared by the Society of Broadcast Engineers, FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Division will outline the test logistics and provide some best practices to help broadcasters prepare for the national test.

Register here for the Oct. 16 session.

Register here for the Oct. 20 session.

Email any questions to FEMA-NationwideTest@fema.dhs.gov.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told CNBC on Friday that when it comes to deciding whether to allow the broadcast of the execution of a man convicted of a terror attack in 2009, he will let the person who announced the decision to do so have the final say.

Last week Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that he would allow the execution of former Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan—who killed 13 unarmed people and wounded 32 others in a 2009 mass shooting at Fort. Hood—would be made available for public viewing, including on a live stream.

"We'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public," he told a right-wing news outlet o Oct. 8. "Because people need to understand that there are serious consequences for these types of things."

When asked about this on CNBC Friday, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr expressed confidence in the SecDef.

“My understanding is it’s not on broadcast TV, so I don’t think there’s a role for the FCC one way or the other,” he said. “But I trust Secretary Hegseth. He’s implemented the laws and the regulations that are relevant to the Department of War, and I think he’s doing a great job, and I trust that he’s making the right call on these issues.”

Carr added that ultimately we’re going to defer to Secretary Hegseth and his decisions on how to move forward with this.”

The last public state sanctioned public execution in the U.S. was in 1936 when the hanging of a Black man accused of rape drew a crowd of up to 20,000 in Kentucky. The only countries that now allow public viewing of executions include Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, North Korea, and Somalia.

Vice President JD Vance on Friday expressed skepticism that the public execution would go forward adding that “I’m not going to be watching it.”

One Army officer told CNN that Hegseth’s plans are wrong and could cause lasting damage to the country’s military,

“It takes away everything America stands for when we do public executions,” he told told CNN. “The generational harm caused by allowing troops in uniform to stand in front of a man in a wheelchair and watch him get shot to death is irreparable.”

Republicans including Sen. John Curtis of Utah have also come out in opposition On a social media post, Curtis wrote that "a civilization erodes when it cultivates an appetite for executions as a form of entertainment."

President Trump on Saturday said that while he said Hasan deserves the death penalty, he hadn't made up his mind yet on allowing it.

“There are two thoughts: Don’t show it and show it, because you know by showing it, maybe other people won’t be doing what he did,” Trump told reporters outside the White House. “So I’ll make a decision ultimately. I know what the military would like to do, but we’ll make a decision.”

The papacy—which opposes the death penalty on moral grounds—weighed in on the news on Friday with Cardinal Parolin stating that such plans for a public execution are unacceptable. “It is truly incomprehensible that anyone would want to resort to this method in this day and age,” he said.

A group of state and regional cable industry organizations representing the nation’s pay-TV operators is asking the Federal Communications Commission to delay its decision last August to eliminate the 39% national TV station ownership cap, pending judicial review.

The organizations told the FCC that they would petition a court of appeals to review the commission’s decision when the order was posted. The group pulled the trigger this week after the order was published on Oct. 2. The order is set to take effect 60 afterwards.

In August, the FCC voted to modify the rule that limits the total reach of TV station groups to 39% of overall U.S. television households. The commission, which had been under pressure from station groups and lobbying groups like the National Association of Broadcasters, justified its decision in the name of local journalism.

“I don't want local broadcast TV to go the way of local newspapers, and yet the risk is real,” Carr said at the time, adding that over the last two decades “more than 80% of local journalism jobs have vanished.”

Cable companies, particularly smaller operators, have long opposed the move, telling FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez last summer that such a move would increase retransmission consent fees and cause “higher consumer bills.”

Those arguments were repeated in the petitioner’s case to the FCC.

“Despite the record clearly showing that retransmission consent fees and consumers’ monthly TV bills will increase substantially as a result of increased broadcaster consolidation following the Order, the Commission dismissed these affordability concerns,” the group told the FCC. “Instead, the Commission determined that retransmission consent concerns are better handled in transaction reviews, inexplicably reversing course after months of Media Bureau-level orders indicating that such concerns were to be addressed in industry-wide rulemakings.”

They also said there was no proof dropping the rule would benefit consumers.

"While the Commission justified its decision to eliminate the Cap based on alleged benefits to network-affiliate relationships, it cited no evidence to support its claim that improving these relationships would mitigate the downstream harms to consumers,” they said. “The Commission also failed to adequately address other substantial and material facts in the record, including the likelihood of public interest harms to localism and viewpoint diversity.

“As Commissioner Gomez summarized in her dissent: ‘I cannot support an action that so plainly exceeds the Commission’s authority while simultaneously overlooking the real-world consequences for the public we serve,’” the petition stated.

The group said it will take further action if the FCC does not pause the rule.

“If the Commission has not ruled on this stay petition by the date on which the Order is published in the Federal Register, Petitioners will conclude that the agency has ‘denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested’ and seek a judicial stay.”

The group includes:

• Broadband Communications Association of Pennsylvania
• Broadband Communications Association of Washington
• Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association
• Florida Internet and Television Association
• Indiana Cable and Broadband Association
• Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association
• Minnesota Cable Communications Association
• Mississippi Internet & Television
• New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association
• VCTA–Broadband Association Of Virginia

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission will take up three new proposals under its spectrum abundance agenda at its Oct. 29 open meeting, Chairman Brendan Carr announced.

The proposals include a new auction of 25 MHz of prime spectrum in the 1675-1695 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands, new rules to build on the success of “direct-to-device” services and final rules to allow drone operations within the 800-MHz cellular band.

“Our proposal to auction 25 MHz of prime spectrum will continue to create tremendous economic value for the American people,” Carr said in a statement. “The ‘direct-to-device’ proposals work to continue leveraging this cutting-edge tech to end cellphone dead zones and provide service directly from next-gen satellite constellations to your smartphone.

“And our final rules on drones … [will provide] the emerging American drone economy with usable spectrum to support the next generation of commercial and defense innovations,” Carr added. “This comes on top of our latest action to light up key spectrum bands purchased by SpaceX for its 15,000 satellite direct-to-cell system.”

D2D and Drones
FCC plans to solicit public comment on modernizing its rules for operating direct-to-device (D2D) services in licensed spectrum. The notice of proposed rulemaking would consider making an additional 482 MHz of spectrum available for Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS), as well as other regulatory changes to promote more flexible terrestrial, satellite and hybrid business arrangements and incentivize high-quality D2D service for the benefit of consumers.

In addition, the commission will seek public comment on its proposal to auction off 25 MHz of prime midband spectrum in the 1675-1695 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands for D2D operations. Such a move would harness the spectrum for advanced communications services, the FCC said, including flexible-use terrestrial networks, innovative D2D operations, or a hybrid of both.

For drones, the commission will seek public comment on a proposal to eliminate an outdated restriction that prevents drone operations in the 800-MHz cellular band. If enacted, the move would unlock 50 MHz of licensed, nationwide, low-band spectrum for drone use and promote parity with other similar flexible-use bands.

The two new rules are expected to benefit companies such as SpaceX and Amazon, which have moved to expand D2D services with satellite networks.

New Test Lab Rules
Carr also criticized what he called the failure of past administrations to allow fair rules for lab tests for electrical devices. He called for new regulations that would ensure that such testing would only occur if other countries followed the same rules in a reciprocal fashion.

Carr said that if approved at the Oct. 29 meeting, new “reciprocal economy” rules would take effect by Dec. 1, 2028, requiring all testing, certifying, and accreditation activities to occur in the U.S. or a foreign nation following equivalent protocols.

He added that the current lab-testing scenario has diminished the commission’s confidence in lab testing from nonreciprocal countries, which has “led to a dangerous overconcentration in non-Reciprocal Economies, creating vulnerabilities and threatening the integrity of the entire equipment authorization program.”

“For decades, officials in D.C. looked the other way when foreign nations abused their relationships with America and adopted trade practices that failed to account for basic concepts of reciprocity and fair dealing,” Carr said. “Those efforts included the offshoring of testing capacity to foreign labs and the gutting of American jobs and domestic industry.

"Flash forward to now and less than 4% of all electronic devices are tested in labs located inside the U.S., and the lion’s share are tested in countries that do not operate a reciprocal economy," he added. "So today, we take appropriate action to insist on fair and reciprocal treatment in international commerce.”

These rules follow last year’s “Bad Labs” regulations, which prohibited Test Lab ownership or control by foreign adversaries or other entities deemed national security threats. These rules have led to 29 Test Labs losing their FCC recognition, according to the commission.

Carr said the FCC has also strengthened its enforcement game, withdrawing recognition from two Test Labs in nonreciprocal economies and beginning the process for two more, where the labs had copied-and-pasted test results, threatening consumer safety and communication network integrity.

Click here for more information.

Digital Alert Systems has released Version 6.1 software for its DASDEC-III emergency messaging platforms. It is free for users who already run Version 6 or who meet certain other criteria.

This adds tighter user-session controls, OpenID Connect (OIDC) configuration enhancements for single sign-on, EAS-Net reliability improvements, and SSL-based CAP Canada support.

DAS published Version 6 in March, citing demand for hardened infrastructure, and this update builds on it.

Now new Federal Communications Commission cybersecurity requirements for Emergency Alert System participants, including radio and television broadcasters and cable operators, took effect on Sept. 29.

“The rules require these operators to install security patches and security-related software and firmware updates from equipment manufacturers promptly after they become available. Testing is permitted, provided it begins promptly. The rules also call for strong passwords and a network firewall or comparable segmentation that limits remote management access.”

Version 6.1 includes current security updates for the DASDEC-III platform.

Here is how the company describes the updates:

• Access Controls: Tighter controls over user sessions, including who can adjust permissions, plus OIDC configuration enhancements for single-sign-on environments.
• Canadian Alerting Support: SSL-based CAP Canada support to accommodate changes to the country’s secure alert-data feed.
• EAS-Net Improvements: Enhanced reliability and event-file management.
• Operational Refinements: Refined MPEG DASH operation, along with improvements to EAS-Net decoding, audio sampling, CAP status reporting and other station functions.

Customers running Version 6 receive V6.1 at no cost. They can download it from the company website using their V6 password.

Customers enrolled in the company’s Software Assurance Plan, who have purchased a new DASDEC or who have participated in its Up-Trade program since October 2025 also receive it at no cost.

Pricing for other users depends on how far back the current software revision is and whether the hardware is compatible. For support email support@digitalalertsystems.com and include your unit’s serial number.

Digital Alert Systems also released Version 5.6 software for its DASDEC-II platforms, which includes some of the same improvements, along with the security updates to comply with current FCC rules. And it encouraged all customers running DASDEC-III to move to Version 6.

This article initially appeared in Radio World, sister brand to TV Tech.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau has officially changed its rules to reflect the fact that broadcasters aren’t required to report employee demographic data to the agency.

This change doesn’t have any practical effect on station operations because the collection of such data stopped 25 years ago.

But in 2024, the FCC, under the previous presidential administration, had tried to revive the program. A federal appeals court in May of 2025 then blocked that, and now the Media Bureau has changed the wording of its rules accordingly.

The outcome does not affect other aspects of the FCC’s EEO rules for broadcasters.

Background
Starting in 1970, the FCC had used Form 395-B to collect race, ethnicity and gender data until the practice was suspended in 2001.

In 2024, under the Biden administration, the FCC reinstated the form to collect employment data from most broadcasters, though collection never actually resumed.

The FCC argued the data would give it a better understanding of workforce composition. It said collection was in the public interest and required under law and that the information would not be for enforcement but for analyzing broadcast industry trends.

But the data would have been available to the public, an aspect of the vote that raised the stakes around this issue.

The National Religious Broadcasters, one of its members and the Texas Association of Broadcasters filed separate suits to block the mandate; those cases were later consolidated.

They said the order violated the First and Fifth Amendments and that the FCC lacked authority for the change. Religious broadcasters also were concerned about the inclusion of a “non-binary” gender option, saying it could force them to recognize genders outside of male and female.

In 2025 a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said the FCC had overstepped its bounds and lacked the statutory authority to require disclosure.

Now, under the Trump administration, the FCC did not appeal. Chairman Brendan Carr considered the FCC’s 2024 move “an unlawful effort to pressure businesses into discriminating based on race and gender,” as he wrote in a social media post last year.

The Media Bureau now has updated Parts 73 and 74 of its rules to conform to the court ruling. It said this is also part of its efforts in the “Delete Delete” proceeding to remove rules that are no longer in effect.

This article originally appeared on TV Tech sister brand Radio World.

Broadcasters associations across America are in agreement over the benefits to software-based emergency alerting. But those benefits also shouldn’t jeopardize perfectly functioning hardware and risk, the associations believe, what makes the EAS system work in the first place.

Associations that represent radio and TV broadcasters from 49 U.S. states expressed those sentiments in a joint filing to the Federal Communications Commission put forth by an attorney on their behalf.

They support software-based EAS, but on a voluntary basis. The filing, submitted Sept. 29, pushed for flexibility, explaining that if a station’s hardware is working just fine, the station should be allowed to continue using it.

The state associations frame their viewpoint under the stance that a solution suitable for a large TV broadcast group might not be suitable for a single radio station operator.

(Read the joint broadcasters association comments.)

“The commission therefore should allow each EAS participant to choose the certified hardware- or software-based solution that best fits its operations,” they wrote.

The joint filing also concurred with prior comments from the National Association of Broadcasters that urged the commission to maintain the existing 60-day repair-or-replace period for software-based EAS, as well as to improve message authentication through a measured process.

The FCC’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to allow broadcasters and other EAS participants to use software to replace EAS hardware if they wish. The deadline for reply comments on the FNPRM was Sept. 29.

The Best Fit
To be clear, the associations see the the benefits of software-based systems. Endorsing NAB, the associations cited better support for remote updates, integration with current broadcast systems and reduced dependence on “purpose-built” hardware.

But they emphasized those benefits should be realized without requiring stations to replace or discontinue use of a functioning hardware-based system.

Software-based EAS should also satisfy performance, security and reliability requirements before it is used or marketed, the associations wrote.

The commission should draw on manufacturer expertise in developing those requirements, they added, and permit routine maintenance, security patches and other updates without recertification.

To that end, the associations also echoed the sentiments of NAB that the FCC should apply the existing 60-day period for repairing or replacing defective EAS equipment to software-based EAS, rather than a 72-hour deadline.

That 72-hour window would discourage the use of such systems, the associations warned. The FCC should not assume that every software-related problem can be diagnosed and corrected within three days, they added.

Authentication
As Radio World has covered in depth, the commission wants to require that broadcasters and other EAS participants reject CAP EAS messages that do not include a valid digital signature.

The FCC believes its proposal represents “a major step forward” in securing CAP EAS alerts and thinks the requirement would be “technically straightforward” because EAS equipment already must authenticate signed CAP EAS messages.

But the associations cautioned that any new digital-signature requirement should be through a process with clear standards and implementation time. This is particularly needed, they said, for those legacy messages transmitted with Specific Area Message Encoding.

As other parties have noted, the National Weather Service does not use digital signatures to authenticate EAS transmissions. Any implementation schedule, the associations urged, should account for NWS transmission practices and provide manufacturers time to develop and test solutions.

“The resulting mechanism should not delay or reject valid alerts or disrupt automated relay,” the associations wrote. “It also should not require broadcasters to replace functioning equipment.”

The commission should permit, but not require, EAS participants to use CAP circles and polygons when assessing the geographic relevance of state and local alerts, they continued.

Coordinates, the broadcast associations stated, can help stations connect an emergency to their signal coverage. They noted the broad reach of conventional EAS, which can reach population centers through a single transmission along with rural and outlying communities.

State members help develop and implement state EAS plans, so the associations pointed to Sage Alerting Systems’ concern that mandatory polygon-based filtering could disrupt established monitoring assignments by preventing an alert from reaching a downstream station.

“CAP geographic data should therefore remain an optional tool for informed local judgment,” the associations wrote.

Similarly, the associations preached caution about the adoption of new legacy EAS location codes where county and partial-county descriptions are inadequate. They noted NAB and Sage concerns on limitations of the location field, coordination with NWS and compatibility with installed equipment.

Finally, the associations believe that technical changes alone cannot ensure effective alerting. “New requirements involving authentication, identifiers, geographic information, location codes or presentation will require coordinated implementation throughout the alerting ecosystem,” they wrote.

They ask the commission to work with FEMA and IPAWS to provide guidance and training before compliance becomes mandatory. That guidance should explain participants’ responsibilities and the effects of the new requirements on CAP and legacy pathways, state EAS plans and monitoring assignments.

This article originally appeared on TV Tech sister brand Radio World.

The Federal Communications Commission has approved a “satellite spectrum abundance” order that it says will open “massive” additional spectrum for better connectivity.

It makes available 1,000 megahertz of spectrum in the 12 GHz and 42 GHz bands for connectivity services, “including even faster satellite broadband.”

The commission provided the details in a fact sheet about the changes published earlier this month.

Chairman Brendan Carr has said that this action will assure that “consumers continue to benefit from competitive, high-speed internet delivered from next-gen satellites.”

The commission is promising spectrum abundance will expand high-speed connectivity to underserved areas and allow a new generation of space-based communications.

“Bountiful downlink spectrum for consumer terminals provides more bandwidth for in-home satellite broadband and with more spectrum for fixed earth stations, these rules can improve how traffic is routed on the ground,” it said in the announcement.

“Additional capacity for inter-satellite links strengthens the backbone in orbit and makes it more resilient. Bolstering spectrum access for earth stations in motion brings better connectivity to ships, planes and vehicles. New spectrum for telemetry, tracking and control opens the door to a wide range of industrial and commercial innovations in space that we are only beginning to imagine.”

It said the decision will bring more capacity for satellite broadband to homes, in-flight and on-ship connectivity, and core traffic-routing functions in satellite ground networks.

In the 12.7-GHz band, the order permits fixed-satellite service (FSS) operations in both uplink and downlink; allows FSS uplinks from individually licensed gateway and feeder link earth stations to space stations in geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) and non-geostationary orbit (NGSO); and allows uplinks from earth stations in motion (ESIMs) aboard aircraft and maritime vessels to GSO space stations and downlink transmissions from NGSO space stations to blanket licensed user terminals, including ESIMs.

In the 42-GHz band, it permits FSS downlink to individually licensed satellite gateway and feeder-link earth stations; maintains the existing primary allocation for terrestrial fixed service stations; and changes the allocation for terrestrial mobile service stations to secondary.

The commission also opened a further notice of proposed rulemaking to consider opening 1,450 megahertz of spectrum in the Ku- and Ka- bands, along with 138.25 gigahertz in the D-band, for “more intensive satellite communications.”

And in a second FNPRM, it added more spectrum bands under consideration for space-related applications including control of spacecraft and transmission of data for newly developing space operations.

WASHINGTON—A U.S. senator wants to know whether the Federal Communications Commission could legally function if its members were all from one political party.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has asked Commissioner Anna Gomez, the agency’s only Democrat, for her legal opinion on whether the Communications Act permits the FCC to do its work with a 3–0 panel of Republicans.

Some observers believe President DonaldTrump might fire Gomez after expected Senate confirmation of nominee Danielle Thumann Severs, a Republican. Thumann Severs would give Republicans a 3–1 majority on a body that in normal times has five members.

Gomez is a telecommunications attorney as well as a frequent and vocal critic of the Trump administration. She has over 30 years in domestic and international communications law and policy. Her FCC term expired in June but she continues to serve under a holdover provision that extends to the end of 2027.

In a letter to Gomez, Wyden cited increasing speculation that Trump intends to fire her after securing a third seated Republican.

Gomez has publicly acknowledged multiple times that Trump might fire her, especially after the Supreme Court’s ruling this summer holding that a president can remove Federal Trade Commission commissioners at will.

But Wyden wrote in the letter that Congress established the FCC in such a way that no party can grab total control over the nation’s communications infrastructure.

He said that some “commentators have tried to suggest that this mathematical formula is just a complicated way of creating a limit of three members from one political party.”

He continued: “But Congress has, in other contexts, shown that it knows exactly how to write a numeric upper limit. In establishing other bodies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the International Trade Commission, Congress provided that not more than three commissioners may belong to the same party.”

Wyden noted amendments to the act that require the commission to have political balance at any operational size: If there are three commissioners on the FCC, only two can be from the same political party.

Before 1982, Wyden wrote, the Communications Act declared that “not more than four” commissioners of a then-seven seat FCC could be from one party.

Wyden believes federal law prohibits a one-party commission. He feels that any action taken by a partisan FCC could be overturned in court. He warned of staggering consequences regardless.

“The FCC’s daily docket consists of thousands of routine but essential administrative actions that are taken through delegated authority,” he wrote.

“The U.S. communications sector represents hundreds of billions of dollars in economic valuation, and relies on the legal validity of these FCC actions. Under an all-Republican commission, every single license renewal, equipment certification, spectrum transfer or other delegated action would be legally defective, casting a cloud of crippling legal uncertainty over the entire communications industry,” Wyden wrote.

Thumann Severs was expected to appear before the Senate Commerce Committee this month, but her hearing was delayed since she is on maternity leave, according to several reports.

Communications Daily reported that communications sector lobbyists. expect the committee will likely delay Thumann Severs confirmation until November.

Meanwhile, civil rights groups recently sent a letter to the top Republican and Democrat of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation urging them to delay confirmation hearings for Thumann Severs.

TV Tech reported that the groups asked Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to delay until Gomez is renominated alongside Thumann Severs, so that both nominees move through the confirmation process together as a package, the traditional way Congress has handled FCC nominees.

The latest in the ongoing battle between the Trump administration and the media erupted in late September, with the White House TV pool members—NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox—saying they would stop providing pool coverage of presidential events.

The organizations were prompted to do so because of President Donald Trump’s Sept. 18 decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. Three days later, the three media organizations sued to reverse the ban.

To save a bit of time and guard against forgetfulness, it seemed wise to ask Google Gemini to “list the actions of the FCC and other federal departments or agencies against TV organizations during the second Trump administration.”

Nine items popped up, including the early license-renewal review and threats against ABC/Disney; an equal-time rule challenge involving ABC O&O KTRK-TV Houston and “The View”; news-distortion inquiries into CBS related to the editing of a 2024 “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris, then a presidential candidate; the defunding of public television; and several others.

Regardless of one’s political leanings, it’s safe to say the state of affairs between the media and the Trump administration can at best be described as strained. All of this makes one wonder whether the Federal Communications Commission, which has an open notice of proposed rulemaking on the transition to ATSC 3.0 and sunsetting of ATSC 1.0, can set aside any animosity that may have festered as these skirmishes with the media have unfolded.

To date, the regulator has shown its ability to do so. Look no further than the national broadcast ownership cap, widely regarded as the industry’s No. 1 priority going into Trump’s second term. In August, the FCC adopted a report and order replacing the 39% cap with a new approach based on case-by-case reviews.

Of course, there has been one legal challenge and more are expected, but the fact the agency rose above it all may bode well for broadcast TV as the FCC moves forward on what may be the industry’s No. 2 priority for this administration. That’s not to suggest broadcasters will get everything they want from a rulemaking on the 3.0 transition and 1.0 sunset, but it at least demonstrates the agency—and its flesh-and-blood commissioners, each with his or her own thoughts, experiences and biases—has the capacity to consider the issues in the NPRM fairly.

Setting aside the ongoing feud between the administration and media, it’s important for regulators to remember what’s riding on a successful 3.0 transition. A rulemaking that establishes a date or dates certain to sunset 1.0 and authorizes broadcasters to flip the channel-sharing script to free up additional TV spectrum is necessary if the industry is to reach its full potential in serving the public interest.

Freeing up additional spectrum by sunsetting 1.0 will enable broadcasters to devote bits they do not have today to delivering emergency alerting and information messages far superior to today’s Emergency Alert System. Devoting additional spectrum to 3.0 will even enable terrestrial delivery of precise timing data to back up vulnerable satellite-based GPS service.

Time will tell if the FCC can continue to rise above it all. One can only hope.

WASHINGTON—The Advanced Warning and Response Network (AWARN) Alliance told the Federal Communications Commission this week in reply comments on a docket to amend Emergency Alert System rules that enabling broadcasters to use the “full capabilities” of the ATSC 3.0 standard will strengthen their connection with the public-safety community and give citizens new tools to protect lives and property during emergencies.

To advance the voluntary transition to ATSC 3.0, broadcasters are channel-sharing, which enables them to put NextGen TV on air while maintaining their ATSC 1.0 service. However, this approach limits how many digital bits they can devote to enhanced broadcast services, such as the Advanced Emergency Information capabilities of 3.0.

“T]he standard… [is] best implemented once ATSC 3.0 broadcast signals are available in markets throughout the country,” the AWARN Alliance comments said. “This will allow broadcasters to enhance connections with the public safety community and deliver new voluntary alerting tools and capabilities that will save lives and property during emergencies.”

The alliance recommended the FCC consider five points in its proceeding, including that:

• EAS already provides blanket coverage to potentially reach millions at once with key emergency messages.
• Modernization of the National Weather Service alert system is urgently needed.
• Standardized and tested symbology could enhance WEA and EAS alerting.
• Local broadcasters are key to effective alerting.
• Voluntary Advanced Emergency Information (AEI) could supplement and expand general EAS alerts.

Blanket coverage is an underlying strength of broadcast EAS alerts that distribute “basic warning broadly and rapidly to listeners and viewers throughout a broadcaster’s services area,” it said. ATSC 3.0 transmitted AEI can amplify those alerts by delivering context, graphics, maps, symbology and multilingual information.

Regarding the National Weather Service modernization, the alliance recommended the FCC launch a collaborative effort to fold the government’s investment in weather warning fully into the IPAWs CAP environment to speed warnings and “ensure security of public alerts and warnings,” it said.

“The Weather Service itself understands the shortcomings, noting in its comments that it would like to work toward the goal of digitally signed messages ‘in the next few years’ and that a collaborative effort is needed,” the alliance said.

Agreeing with comments from Digital Alert Systems, the alliance noted that the “EDX approach” could provide a practical means to carry the data needed and persistent message IDs and cryptographic authentication to conventional EAS transmission.

The alliance also pointed out that the voluntary transmission of standardized hazard alert symbology by broadcasters and wireless carriers would benefit the public. “For television broadcasting, standardized symbology may be an especially natural fit with the Advanced Emergency Information capabilities of ATSC 3.0. Rather than being limited to the traditional EAS text crawl and audio interruption, AEI can support supplemental graphical and multimedia information accompanying an emergency message,” the alliance said.

Agreeing with joint filings from state attorneys general, the alliance recommended the FCC require symbol testing in WEA and EAS among those with disabilities and limited English-language skills to ensure those symbols do not cause confusion. The alliance also agreed with comments from International Deaf Emergency calling for plain-language instructions to accompany symbols.

“These accessibility objectives also illustrate the value of preserving flexibility for advanced broadcast platforms,” it said. “ATSC 3.0, for example, supports multiple audio presentations and languages as well as supplemental emergency information that can provide additional means of communicating with audiences having different language and accessibility needs.”

Regarding the key role broadcasters play in delivering effective emergency alerts to the public, the alliance reminded the FCC that local stations are “best equipped to share local information,” including messages targeting specific geographic areas—a capability consistent with the FCC’s interest in “enhancing alerts with more geo-targeted capabilities.”

“At the same time, ATSC 3.0 provides broadcasters with capabilities that can materially expand the usefulness and accessibility of emergency information beyond the basic EAS message. Advanced Emergency Information can support geographically relevant information and supplemental text, maps, graphics, audio, and other content, while the ATSC 3.0 audio system supports multiple audio presentations and languages that can provide additional flexibility for multilingual and accessible emergency communications,” it said.

The alliance reminded the commission that cable operators do not have equipment that can geotarget alerting, which means it is “essential”the FCC “continue to recognize that local broadcasters remain the dominant source of information during emergencies.”

The AWARN Alliance also explicitly drew the distinction for the FCC between EAS and AEI and the roles each play in emergency alerting. Agreeing with comments from Sinclair, the alliance quoted the station group: “EAS / WEA tells a user that something has happened. AEI can tell the user what happened, where, where to go, where not to go, where the evacuation routes are, where the shelters are, and continue to update users as conditions change.”

While ATSC 3.0 can enable broadcasters to deliver geotargeted alerts, the alliance noted, this should remain a “voluntary capability for TV broadcasters.”

“The AWARN Alliance agrees with Digital Alert Systems that ‘the Commission should recognize this capability without requiring every ATSC 3.0 broadcaster to implement AEI on a common timetable,’” it said.

WASHINGTON—Over the weekend, President Trump rolled out two new ads promoting his presidency that have been broadcast on both broadcast and cable networks. The ads, funded by the U.S. government, could violate federal law, according to many politicians and experts.

In response, Public Citizen filed a complaint with the FCC, FTC, individual broadcasters urging media companies to immediately stop airing the ad.

Public Citizen also filed a second complaint with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) alleging that the new ad violates laws prohibiting the use of government resources for propaganda, the Hatch Act, and other related laws.

The ads, which are airing in two media markets containing key districts in the upcoming midterm elections, include a disclaimer: “Paid for by the U.S. government.” Public Citizen previously submitted a complaint to GAO and OSC after the first Trump-promoting government-funded ad appeared on air last week.

“That the Trump administration not only failed to acknowledge and investigate last week’s illegal ad, but instead doubled down and released a second piece of taxpayer funded political propaganda during the mass-viewing moment of Sunday football is appalling and alarming,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “These illegal ads should immediately be pulled from the air, and the White House’s many apparent violations of the law should be investigated.”

“This administration’s repeated and flagrant violations of the law, including the Hatch Act, are an affront to taxpayers and our democracy,” said Craig Holman, Ph.D., a government ethics expert with Public Citizen. “The FCC and other oversight agencies are charged with ensuring this type of abuse of taxpayer funds does not happen. But that system only works if they take action.”

The letter to broadcasters notes that they should refrain from airing advertisements that they know are otherwise illegal under the law, and that broadcasters must maintain a public file on any political ads they air. Failing to uphold this duty can result in broadcast license revocation, the letter states.

The FCC/FTC complaint is available to read here, and the second OSC and GAO complaint can be found here.

WASHINGTON—A new ex parte FCC filing from Edward Czarnecki uses game theory to analyze the risks and potential rewards of different policy approaches and regulations governing the NextGenTV/ATSC 3.0 transition.

The analysis, which explores a number of different scenarios in a very detailed, nuanced fashion, is particularly notable because it raises questions about the impact of a market driven transition with no mandated cutoff date for ATSC 1.0.

“If broadcast television continues to serve important public interest functions, and ATSC 3.0 can credibly preserve or expand those functions, then an indefinite transition with no target date is the policy structure least able to address the coordination problem identified in the model,” he concludes.

Czarnecki, who is currently a vice president, international and government affairs at Digital Alert Systems, Inc., a member of the board of the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) and a recognized expert on both emergency alerting and the 3.0 broadcast standard, filed the analysis as an individual.

In the analysis, he stresses that “the use of game-theoretic analysis to evaluate communications policy choices is well known. FCC decisions and staff analyses have employed game-theoretic models to examine spectrum allocation, licensing rules, bargaining behavior, market concentration, and strategic interactions among regulated parties. The Commission's spectrum-auction history is one of the more notable real-world applications of game theory, and FCC staff have published analyses explicitly using Nash equilibria to examine policy and auction-design questions. This type of approach provides a structured way of examining a transition in which the decisions of broadcasters, manufacturers, consumers, and regulators are interdependent.”

“The purpose of the model is to make assumptions, incentives, strategic choices, and tradeoffs explicit” he added.

It “examines three paths: a market-driven transition with no required date, a nearer-term target date, and a later target date. Each path changes incentives in different ways," he wrote. "A firm date can reduce uncertainty and the reason to wait, but it can also raise near-term costs if the industry and consumers are not ready. A later date gives more time for receivers, services, and other parts of the market to develop, but it also leaves more room for delay while broadcasting continues to lose ground to competing technologies.”

“Put more directly,” Czarnecki explained, “the record shows that television broadcasting still provides important public interest value and that ATSC 3.0 can preserve or expand that value. The model in this analysis also shows that an open-ended, market-based transition is not a neutral starting point. Without a deadline, participants keep a strong reason to wait for others to move first, which adds to the industry's coordination problem. The policy question therefore becomes not whether there should be a target date, but when that date should be and what conditions should apply.”

In the analysis, he highlights the importance of the transition for the future of broadcasting in a rapidly changing media landscape and lays out the important public policy issues involved in their ability to deliver vital local news and emergency coverage.

Despite the obvious benefits, both for private broadcasters and the public, of ATSC 3.0 he also stresses that the transition faces serious challenges in terms of the timing and market based pressures.

“ATSC 3.0 has the basic structure of an assurance game with network effects,” he writes. “A broadcaster gets more value when compatible receivers, nearby stations, MVPDs, advertisers, application developers, and service partners also participate. However that same dependence gives each participant a reason to wait for others to move first. Slow adoption can therefore be a reasonable private choice even when most participants would prefer a mature ATSC 3.0 system.”

“Real-options theory explains why it can make sense to delay a costly or hard-to-reverse investment while uncertainty falls,” he added. “However that is only part of the problem here. Broadcasting is competing in a market that keeps changing during the delay. The value of waiting for more information must therefore be weighed against the risk that audience attention, advertising, device support, and industry investment move elsewhere before ATSC 3.0 reaches scale.”

More specifically, he uses game theory to lays out a number of the factors that the FCC should consider in guiding the transition and setting a cutoff date for ATSC 1.0

“The Commission's ATSC 3.0 proceeding is about more than replacing one technical standard with another,” he explains. “It also concerns the future of free local broadcast television in a market increasingly centered on streaming and IP-based delivery. The continued strength of broadcasting is therefore a public interest question as well as an industry investment question. The game-theory analysis helps narrow the policy choice rather than simply listing competing concerns.”

“First, the Commission must decide whether a viable broadcast television platform still provides important public interest value through free local service, local news and community programming, emergency alerts and information, resilience, and platform diversity. The record to date strongly supports the conclusion that it does,” he concludes.

“Second, the Commission must decide whether ATSC 3.0 offers a credible way to preserve or expand that value,” he adds. “The question is not simply whether the standard has more features on paper. It is whether IP-based delivery, improved reception, advanced emergency information, hybrid broadcast/broadband services, portable and mobile reception, datacasting, and other capabilities can meaningfully improve the usefulness and competitive position of broadcast television.

“If the evidence supports both findings, and the record provides strong support for them, an open-ended transition is no longer a neutral policy choice. It allows broadcasters, receiver manufacturers, MVPDs, consumers, and other participants to keep waiting for one another, which preserves the coordination problem seen throughout the transition,” he noted. “At the same time, the television market continues to change. The value of waiting must therefore be weighed against the risk that broadcasting loses audience, investment, device support, and strategic relevance during the delay.”

“Under those conditions, the main policy question becomes when a target date transition can occur and what conditions should apply, rather than whether the transition should remain open-ended. Evidence about transition readiness determines the next step. If receiver availability, consumer continuity, broadcaster and supply-chain capacity, MVPD integration, accessibility, and other requirements are at a sufficient level, then a nearer target date can reduce indefinite waiting and give everyone a common planning horizon. If those conditions are not ready, the problem is readiness rather than coordination. Here, more time, staging, milestones, targeted relief, or different treatment for some participants can address real implementation limits.”

“However, extra time is useful only if it produces measurable progress. An open-ended transition is unlikely to improve readiness by itself. A firm date is more likely to focus planning and investment, although the Commission still must decide whether that date should be nearer or farther away.”

“The model therefore leads to this conditional policy conclusion: If broadcast television continues to serve important public interest functions, and ATSC 3.0 can credibly preserve or expand those functions, then an indefinite transition with no target date is the policy structure least able to address the coordination problem identified in the model.

“Once that threshold finding is made, the discussion should turn from whether a transition date is needed to how near or far away that date should be. Evidence about readiness then determines whether the date can be relatively near term or whether the transition needs more time, stages, milestones, or targeted relief.”

“In today's television market, time itself matters,” he concludes. “Streaming services, viewing habits, advertising models, device systems, and content distribution continue to change while the broadcast transition remains incomplete. The cost of waiting therefore includes more than dual operation or delayed deployment. It also includes the risk that the broadcast platform becomes less relevant before the technologies meant to modernize it reach enough scale.”

WASHINGTON—Civil rights groups have sent a letter to the Chair and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation urging them to delay confirmation hearings for Danielle Thumann Severs to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The Sept. 15 letter to Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) urged the committee to wait until Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez has been renominated alongside Thumann Severs so that both nominees are moved through the confirmation process together.

In the past, presidents have nominated both Republican and Democrats at the same time to the FCC but President Trump has not, as yet, put forward a Democrat.

If confirmed, Thumann Severs would give the Republicans a 3 to 1 majority. Gomez’s term ended in June 30, 2026 but she will be able to remain on the FCC until the end of 2027 or until the Senate confirms a successor.

“President Trump and other administration officials have repeatedly undermined the traditional independence of regulatory bodies, setting a perilous precedent that puts at risk their mission to safeguard the American public,” the letter said. “The nomination of Ms. Thumann Severs, a Republican, without an accompanying nomination of a Democrat, is a breach of democratic norms that raises serious concerns about the separation of powers that has protected our democracy for generations. Independent agencies should not be extensions of presidential will: their leaders should exercise independent judgement based on their expertise and statutory mandates. Senate confirmation is meaningless if confirmed officials can be summarily dismissed without cause, as has occurred at other regulatory bodies, raising serious questions about the efficacy and purpose of the confirmation process itself.”

“FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s conduct over the past year highlights the need for a fully staffed FCC capable of providing a number of checks on the Chairman, including providing great transparency into the Commission’s actions, ensuring the administrative record is complete, raising important questions during proceedings, and meeting consumers,” the letter added. “In our previous letter (sent December 17, 2025) to this Committee, we highlighted our concerns with the behavior — the pressuring of broadcasters, gutting of media diversity rules, coercion of companies to pull back of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and aiding attempts by the Administration to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence — under Chairman Carr’s leadership. In the nine months since that letter, Chair Carr has continued to threaten broadcasters and gut critical federal programs like Lifeline and E-Rate. A check on these actions is needed now more than ever, and Commissioner Gomez has been an outspoken critic of many actions taken by the Commission over the past two years.”

The letter was signed by: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights American Library Association; Asian Americans Advancing Justice - AAJC Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Common Cause; Communications Workers of America; Feminist Majority Foundation; Hispanic Federation; HTTP; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC); MMTC; National Action Network; National Hispanic Media Coalition; National Urban League; UnidosUS; and United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry.

The full letter is available here.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission has announced a tentative agenda for its Wednesday, September 30, 2026 Open Meeting that will see the Commissioners consider such issues as satellite spectrum, unlicensed ultra-wideband (UWB) devices, environmental policy rules, 911 and other issues.

The meeting is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

Open Meetings are streamed live at: www.fcc.gov/live and on the FCC’s YouTube channel.

The regulator described the items on the agenda as follows:

• Modernizing the Commission’s National Environmental Policy Act Rules (WT Docket No. 25-217). "The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to overhaul the Commission’s outdated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules. These reforms will clarify the scope of Commission actions subject to environmental review and streamline and expedite the review process to ensure NEPA serves as a tool for informed decision-making rather than a barrier to investment, innovation, and connectivity."
• Satellite Spectrum Abundance (SB Docket No. 25-180); Spectrum Abundance for Weird Space Stuff (SB Docket No. 26-54); Expanding Use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz Band for Mobile Broadband or Other Expanded Use (GN Docket No. 22-352); Shared Use of the 42-42.5 GHz Band (WT Docket No. 23-158); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services (GN Docket No. 14-177). "The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification and two Further Notices of Proposed Rulemaking that would increase the amount of spectrum available in order to support innovation in the American space economy. The Order would unlock more than 1,000 megahertz of spectrum in the 12.7 GHz and 42 GHz bands to provide greater capacity for satellite broadband to the home or for in-flight connectivity and the like. One FNPRM would seek comment on unlocking an additional 1,175 megahertz of spectrum in the Ku- and Ka-bands and 138.25 gigahertz in the D-band for more intensive use by satellite communications. The other FNPRM would seek comment on three new bands across thousands of megahertz that might be able to be used to control spacecraft or to provide data communications in support of emergent space activities, such as in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing."
• Unleashing the Power of Unlicensed UWB Devices (ET Docket No. 26-245). "The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would modernize the rules for unlicensed Ultra-Wideband (UWB) devices. UWB devices operate under part 15 of the Commission's rules and support a wide variety of applications, including automobile sensors, door locks, ground- and wall-penetrating radars, and location tracking for NFL players during games. The NPRM would modernize the UWB rules by updating definitions, measurement procedures, technical parameters, and outdated restrictions, while removing unnecessary coordination requirements. The NPRM would also create a new UWB device category for emerging applications like AI-enabled sensing and overall seek to future-proof UWB regulations for the next wave of innovation while maintaining protections for incumbent services."
• Modernizing the 911 Framework (PS Docket No. 26-197). "The Commission will consider a Notice of Inquiry exploring modernization of the 911 framework to ensure the public can continue to effectively and reliably access emergency services in this era of rapid technological change."
• Enhancing the Ability of Consumers to Control Which Calls That They Wish to Receive (CG Docket No. 02-278). "The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking modernizing its Telephone Consumer Protection Act rules to ensure that consumers have easily accessible ways to opt-out of robocalls while streamlining callers’ ability to process consent revocation requests."

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau has approved a Paramount petition that would allow 49.5% foreign ownership of the company after its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery is completed.

Despite this key approval, the deal still faces antitrust lawsuits that have delayed its completion.

Paramount had filed a petition for declaratory ruling with the FCC asking for a waiver of rules that bar foreign investors from owning more than 25% of a company that owns broadcast stations.

In approving the petition, FCC staff dismissed worries that allowing such a large foreign ownership stake posed national security issues, noting that the Ellison family will retain 100% voting control and that the foreign investors do not have voting shares.

The Media Bureau also stressed that the FCC has the “discretion to allow foreign investment in a licensee’s controlling U.S. parent above 25% unless the Commission finds that the public interest would be served by refusing to permit such foreign investment.”

“We are persuaded by Paramount’s argument Reply Comments that the Foreign Investors therefore will not be able to wield any influence, let alone control, over decisions involving the Licensees,” the Media Bureau ruled. “Paramount has further demonstrated that David Ellison will retain control over Paramount and that the Ellison family will continue to own a majority of the voting stock, and we credit Paramount’s statement that `Paramount will ensure that there will be no interference with the editorial or decision-making policies of its broadcast stations (or CBS News or any other facets of Paramount news and entertainment programming).’"

The agency did impose, however, a number of conditions on Paramount that will require it to report any changes in foreign ownership and control. “We condition our approval of the Petition on Paramount’s returning to the Commission for approval before giving the Foreign Investors additional rights, including but not limited to, any voting rights,” the Media Bureau said.

Public-interest group Free Press, some Congressional Democrats and others who opposed the waiver argued that foreign investors should not be allowed such a large stake in a U.S. broadcaster such as CBS.

They also noted that the approval would give Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, the Qatar Investment Authority and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority a 38.5% stake in the company, and that those countries had poor human rights records in terms of censorship, torture and crackdowns on dissent.

Anna Gomez, the sole Democratic FCC commissioner, reacted to the unilateral approval of the waiver with a statement criticizing the move: “The FCC just let some of the most repressive governments in the world indirectly control nearly all of a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. An investment this large in one of America's biggest media companies doesn't just buy equity; it secures influence over what gets said and what gets made.

“That's why I called for this new and novel issue to go to a full Commission vote given what's at stake,” she added. “Instead, the FCC snuck this ruling out as a staff-level decision, with no public vote and no accountability for a call of this magnitude.”

The full ruling is available here.

There will be a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System this November.

FEMA, in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission, will conduct a nationwide EAS test on Nov. 17. The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau made the announcement on Wednesday.

All EAS participants — which includes nearly all licensed radio stations in the U.S. — are required to participate in the test and submit required filings in the commission’s EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS). If conditions on that date require rescheduling, the alternate test date is Dec. 3.

This is the first national periodic test since 2023. In the past, those tests have occurred every two years.

Prior to the test, all EAS participants must submit their annual ETRS Form One for calendar year 2026 no later than Oct. 30.

FEMA will transmit the nationwide test at 2:20 p.m. Eastern Time on Nov. 17 using Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, according to the commission. The test will be disseminated in English and Spanish as a Common Alerting Protocol message using the Nationwide Test of the EAS (NPT) event code.

It will be geo-targeted using the All-US (000000) geocode, according to FEMA.

The test message audio and text, which the commission said is designed to be identical to the greatest extent possible, is as follows:

“This is a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, covering the United States from 2:20 to 2:50 hours ET. This is only a test. No action is required by the public.”

Preparation Steps
The bureau encourages EAS participants to take the following preparation steps in coordination with their State Emergency Communications Committees:

• Ensure a copy of the EAS operating handbook is located at normal duty positions or equipment locations and is accessible to operators. A writable PDF version can be found on the bureau’s website.
• Review handbook procedures for actions operators must take upon receipt of the test alert and tailor steps specific to the facility.
• Review state EAS plans for monitoring assignments and ensure equipment is configured to monitor those sources.
• Update EAS equipment software and firmware to the most recent version.
• Ensure equipment clocks are synchronized to official time provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology if not automatically set.

Post-Test Reporting Deadlines
Forms Two and Three will open in ETRS on Nov. 17 at the time of the test:

• ETRS Form Two: Must be filed within 48 hours of the test (by 2:20 p.m. ET on Nov. 19, or Dec. 5 if conducted on the backup date).
• ETRS Form Three: Detailed post-test data must be submitted within 45 days (on or before Jan. 4, 2027, or Jan. 18, 2027, for the backup date).

A user who has a registered username and an FCC registration number can access ETRS through the commission’s website.

Filers who have not previously create a username can do so at its user registration section.

Exemptions
All EAS participants — including Low Power FM (LPFM) stations, Class D noncommercial educational FM stations, and stations operating silent under Special Temporary Authority — are required to register and file in ETRS.

The only exceptions are:

• LPTV stations operating as translators that entirely rebroadcast another broadcast station;
• FM booster and FM translator stations that entirely rebroadcast another local FM station, and
• International broadcast stations

Satellite or repeater stations that rebroadcast 100% of a hub station’s programming, but the primary hub station remains required to file.

The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act of 2015 requires FEMA to conduct nationwide tests of the public alert and warning system.

This article originally appeared on TV Tech sister brand, Radio World.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau has announced deadlines and other procedures for responding to the Bureau’s public notice reminding broadcasters and the public about preexisting law and FCC guidance pertaining to the “lowest unit charge” (LUC) requirements for political ads.

The Bureau issued guidance in March that appeared to expand the organizations that are eligible for the discounts on political ads, a policy that could cost broadcasters significant ad revenue.

The move quickly prompted pushback from broadcasters as well as Democrats, including an application for review filed by Democrats Sherrod Brown, Jon Ossoff, Roy Cooper, and Kristen McDonald Rivet who are running for Congress.

The issue has also spilled into the Courts, with a Federal Appeals Court blocking the guidance and the Supreme Court restoring it in a Sept. 4 emergency stay.

Although the Media Bureau did not ask for public comment in issuing the guidance in March and has argued in recent months that it is not required to, the Bureau is now asking for comments to be filed by Sept. 25 and reply comments by Sept. 30.

The filing window is shorter than usual because of the looming midterm elections and the guidance’s potential impact on those election because it would provide discounts to a wider group of political organizations, Republicans have generally favored the expansion, which would require privately owned broadcasters to increase the subsidies they offer political groups, thus reducing their overall revenue, while Democrats have opposed it.

In a statement the FCC’s lone Democrat Commissioner Anna Gomez’s complained that “This comment period comes months after the Application for Review was filed, and only after the discount window already opened and ads are already running under the very policy it is asking the Commission to reverse, so the people most affected have already lost the chance to weigh in when it mattered. By opening a docket on the issue for the very first time, the Commission is confirming what I and the Fourth Circuit already said, that this process needed public input from the start and never should have gone this far without it. This is less like newfound transparency and more like damage control dressed up as due process, and a delay tactic dressed up as diligence.”

The full filing seeking “Comment on Application for Review of Public Notice Pertaining to Lowest Unit Charge Requirements” and related documents are available here.

WASHINGTON—The Television Bureau of Advertising has once again weighed in on a potentially very costly expansion of political ad discounts in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission.

The Sept. 14 filing argues that the Media Bureau improperly expanded who is eligible to receive a “lowest unit charge,” or LUC, for political ads. It also contends those discounts unconstitutionally violate broadcasters’ First Amendment rights.

In March, the Media Bureau issued a public notice with guidance on who is entitled to discounted advertising rates under the “FCC’s lowest unit charge (LUC) requirements” that appeared to expand eligibility for discounted ads. That notice argued that “the LUC requirements are applicable to (1) authorized committees, including authorized committees that engage in joint fundraising with legally qualified candidates for federal office, and (2) advertisements that qualify as coordinated expenditures of political parties and legally qualified candidates for federal office.”

The TVB petitioned the Media Bureau to reconsider its ruling, but on Aug. 13 the bureau rejected that petition, arguing the FCC hadn’t actually changed any of its rules.

In late August, though, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that guidance. That ruling sided with four Democratic congressional candidates who had asked the 4th Circuit to limit the groups entitled to discounted political advertising under FCC rules.

The Supreme Court then issued an emergency stay on Sept. 4, reinstating the rules in response to filings by Republican groups.

The FCC political-ad rules are important to broadcasters because expanding eligibility for discounted ad rates could significantly reduce stations’ overall revenue from this year’s hotly contested midterm elections.

In a Sept. 14 filing, the broadcaster-backed TVB argued: “[T]he Commission should grant this application for review, reverse the Bureau’s actions in DA 26-300 and DA 26-851, set aside the Public Notice, and confirm that only a legally qualified candidate and the candidate’s designated principal campaign committee are entitled to the LUC [lowest unit charge for political ads]. In the alternative, the Commission should conduct a proper notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Commission also should determine to no longer enforce its unconstitutional LUC rules in their entirety. Given the exceptional importance of these issues and impending election cycles, TVB urges the Commission to act quickly on this application for review.”

In the filing, the TVB stressed that “under governing law and longstanding precedent, only a candidate’s designated principal campaign committee is entitled to LUC rates, while other types of joint or hybrid committees are not. The Notice thus purports to cement a substantial expansion of the LUC that is contrary to statute, procedurally defective and unconstitutional.”

The group added, “This unlawful expansion exemplifies why the LUC statute and the FCC’s implementing rules violate the First Amendment, and why the Commission should decline to enforce its LUC rules going forward.”

Expanding access to discounted political ad rates, which critics say forces private broadcasters to subsidize political groups, has been backed by Republicans and attacked by Democrats.

Those Democrats, as has been previously reported, include FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez. “Broadcasters are being directed to slash prices and sell their most valuable inventory during their busiest and most lucrative season, even as this same FCC has spent months arguing broadcasters need economic and regulatory relief to compete with Big Tech and streaming,” she said. “You cannot claim broadcasters are struggling to survive and then force them into a fire sale on the one thing that could actually help them compete and increase revenue.”

The full TVB filing is available here.

WASHINGTON— Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, said the panel will hold a hearing Sept. 17 on Danielle Thumann Severs’ appointment to the Federal Communications Commission.

In August, President Donald Trump nominated Thumann Severs, a Republican, to complete a five-year term that began on July 1, 2024.

She would fill a seat that has been vacant since Republican Nathan Simington resigned in July 2025. Her appointment would give Republicans a 3-1 majority on the commission.

Trump has not nominated a Democrat to replace Geoffrey Starks, who also left in July of 2025, even though it is traditional for Republican and Democratic nominees to be considered together.

Recently, a coalition of 12 communications industry, broadband, and public safety organizations that included NATE, NCTA and NTCA sent a letter to Cruz and the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), backing the nomination.

The letter applauded her experience in issues handled by the FCC. Thumann Severs has served two tours in the FCC chairman’s office, first as a legal adviser beginning in 2021 and now as senior counsel, with a policy portfolio spanning the Wireline Competition Bureau, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

WASHINGTON—A coalition of 12 communications industry, broadband, and public safety organizations has sent a letter to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Chairman Ted Cruz and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell urging the Committee to favorably report the nomination of Danielle Thumann Severs to serve as a Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) so the full Senate can move swiftly to confirm her.

“We write in strong support of the nomination of Danielle Thumann Severs to serve as a Commissioner for the Federal Communications Commission and respectfully urge the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to report her nomination favorably so the full Senate can move swiftly to confirm her,” whote the coalition, which is being led by NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association. “Few nominees bring both a command of the Commission’s institutional record and firsthand knowledge of what it takes to permit, build, and maintain a network.”

In addition to NATE, the letter was signed by America’s Communications Association, the Connected Digital Infrastructure Association, the Fiber Broadband Association, INCOMPAS (The Competitive Communications and AI Infrastructure Association), NATE Wireless Industry Network (WIN), NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, NTCA: The Rural Broadband Association, the Power & Communication Contractors Association, the Safer Buildings Coalition, the Wireless Infrastructure Association, and WTA – Advocates for Rural Broadband.

The letter highlights three areas of Thumann Severs’ record: bridging the digital divide and expanding connectivity, delivering for consumers, and empowering American workers.

She “has worked directly with tower and fiber builders—many of them small, family-owned firms—on the permitting, siting, and infrastructure policies that determine whether crews have steady work and whether infrastructure actually gets built,” and that she has supported the Commission’s push “to ensure that skilled, vetted, properly classified American crews build and maintain these networks, and that these workers are fairly compensated in line with the demands and hazards of the job,” the letter said.

The groups signing the letter also credited her record of building consensus, describing her as “a leading architect of the durable, bipartisan work that makes for smart and lasting communications policy” whose “focus on substance and results is what has earned her the trust of civil society, consumer groups, government officials, and companies across the communications landscape.”

“The breadth of this coalition says something,” said NATE President & CEO Todd Schlekeway. “Contractors, fiber and wireless builders, rural broadband providers, cable, and public safety advocates do not agree on everything, but we agree on this. Danielle is ready on day one, and we urge Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and the members of the Committee to report her nomination favorably and encourage the full Senate to confirm her promptly.”

Thumann Severs has served two tours in the FCC Chairman’s office, first as a Legal Advisor beginning in 2021 and now as Senior Counsel, with a policy portfolio spanning the Wireline Competition Bureau, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

Between those tours she led state and local government relations for a nationwide communications infrastructure provider, and before entering public service she practiced communications law at Wilkinson Barker Knauer.

She earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia and her J.D. cum laude from the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law. Earlier this year, NATE presented her with the Association’s 2026 Regulatory Champion of the Year Award.

The full text of the coalition letter is available here.

NEW YORK—Late night talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel has announced that he will be streaming his Sept. 10 interview with James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Texas, on YouTube rather than showing it on TV because of potential regulatory issues.

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr has previously threatened ABC affiliate station licenses over comments made by Kimmel.

The FCC has also issued guidance that network late night programming and talk-shows are subject to political equal time rules and launched investigations into both ABC’s “The View” talk show and the broadcast licenses of ABC-owned stations, which have been required to go through an early renewal process.

“Tomorrow night, I'll be interviewing James Talarico tomorrow under unusual circumstances,” Kimmel said in his opening monologue on Sept. 9, adding that the interview would appear on YouTube rather than TV..

“You know, for a lot of years, for the whole 20-plus years of our show, in fact, I've been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem at all, just like Letterman did, Leno did, Arsenio, et cetera, et cetera,” he added. “I've interviewed a lot of political candidates, from Hillary Clinton to Ted Cruz, to Donald Trump himself. I interviewed Donald Trump when he was running for president in 2015, and at that time, when he was the one sitting next to me, he seemed to have no problem with the idea of talk show hosts interviewing candidates. In fact, he was very eager to come back for another interview, which he did just before he became the nominee in 2016.”

But “[s]omething has changed now that he's president,” Kimmel said. “His FCC is threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network, ABC, our affiliates, our local stations based on simple traditional editorial decisions, guest bookings…[S]o out of consideration for our local stations, especially our ABC affiliates in Texas, who would have to deal with this nonsense, my interview tomorrow with James Talarico will not air on television. It will be posted on YouTube instead. It will not be on TV.”

“So if you want to learn about a candidate for the Senate tomorrow, you will have to go to the Jimmy Kimmel YouTube channel, where you will see it in its entirety,” he concluded. “And thank goodness we have that, because in the America we live in right now, that is the best that we can do.”

In response, FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez once again condemned the FCC’s attempt to enforce political equal times rules on talk shows and late night programming as an example of “just how far this Administration’s campaign of censorship and control has gone. This is now the second time in a matter of months that a late-night host has disclosed they had to bury an interview because of FCC intimidation, and there is no way to know how many other editorial decisions across the country have quietly been shaped by this same pressure.”

“No host, local affiliate, or network should have to weigh federal retaliation before booking a guest for a newsworthy interview,” she added. “Any attempt to pressure broadcasters into self-censorship undermines both press freedom and the public’s right to hear from candidates in their communities seeking public office.”

Gomez also repeated her longstanding arguments that “[t]he FCC has no lawful authority to threaten broadcast licenses over guest bookings or editorial decisions. Unlike other broadcasters who have quietly capitulated, Disney’s ABC has continued to fight this unlawful coercion in court, and episodes like this one only strengthen that case…I urge broadcasters everywhere to keep resisting this pressure, and I hope courts will soon make clear that the FCC has no place dictating editorial choices or what viewers are allowed to see.”

WASHINGTON—FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced on Wednesday that the commission will vote later this month on two items that would open up additional spectrum for “next-generation connectivity.”

In a satellite spectrum abundance order, the commission will vote on unlocking more than 1,000 MHz of spectrum in the 12 GHz and 42 GHz bands for a range of connectivity services, including even faster satellite broadband. Second, the commission will seek comment on a proposal to modernize the FCC’s rules for ultra-wideband technology (UWB)—unlicensed offerings that power a range of IoT, consumer, and other cutting-edge devices.

"Unlicensed device manufacturers are increasingly finding that UWB’s high data rates, precise location capabilities, and ability to coexist with other services across multiple spectrum bands make it the right technology for today’s needs," the FCC said. "Today’s NPRM addresses the technology advancements and explosion in innovative use cases since the commission’s landmark 2002 decision to authorize the first unlicensed UWB operations."

Carr said the FCC's proposal "will push more commercial spectrum into the marketplace than ever before. By unlocking these bands, the FCC will give a big boost to American innovation and promote economic growth across a wide range of industries."

“In the spectrum abundance decision, we will ensure that consumers continue to benefit from competitive, high-speed Internet delivered from next-gen satellites,” Carr added. “And in our UWB proposal, the commission will propose to modernize our existing rules to unlock even more opportunities for unlicensed devices across a wide swath of spectrum. This spectrum is so seamlessly woven into our everyday lives, from keeping us safe in our cars to tracking our package deliveries that most people don’t even realize its critical role. The proposal circulated today represents the Commission’s first comprehensive modernization of these rules since their adoption in 2002 and works to further refine and reshape our rules to meet today’s needs.”

The announcement comes amid a slew of initiatives to auction off more publicly held radio spectrum since the FCC's auction authority was restored a year ago.

During an interview on Sunday Sept. 6 with Fox News, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr blasted broadcasters for taking “billions of dollars in taxpayer…subsidized distribution” while ignoring their public interest obligations and providing “partisan” news coverage.

Carr made the comments in response to social media posts in late August by President Trump who lashed out at “FAKE POLLS USED BY OUR CROOKED MEDIA” and by Trump’s complaints about the way `Meet the Press’ moderator Kristen Welker covered some primary results. In August 30 comments Trump said Welker should face “rebuke or punishment” from the FCC.

In response to a question about Welker, Carr lauded Trump’s understanding of the FCC’s authority and U.S. communications law by saying the “one thing that President Trump gets fundamentally is that broadcast TV is completely different than other forms of distribution, including cable” in that they are governed by public interest rules.

“So many broadcasters right now want to break the deal that they cut with the American people,” Carr continued. “They get billions of dollars in taxpayer, effectively subsidized distribution, and what they're supposed to do in exchange is operate in the public interest, not some sort of narrow partisan interest. I think President Trump is over the target, and we're looking at a lot of actions.”

“For instance,” he added, “there's a lot of interest right now in fake polls that are out there, and so the FCC may put guidance out soon to remind broadcasters about their obligations with respect to not airing fake polls, particularly if they're done to suppress people heading into the fall.”

How the FCC would regulate the coverage of polls or even determine which ones are funded by political action committees or political parties that have clear partisan objectives is open to question.

Carr also did not address whether the FCC would expand its regulation of news coverage to include conservative talk radio, something he has avoided doing in the past, or if he would continue to limit the FCC's guidance and regulatory threats to TV stations and networks.

The FCC’s lone Democrat Commissioner Anna Gomez blasted the idea in a post on X.

“News coverage of a poll that doesn't favor a political party is not a license to meddle in an election through intimidation,” she noted. “Broadcasters should take note. Do not let a sad and desperate attempt to punish accurate reporting become an excuse for censorship.”

“Polls can be wrong,” she added. “That's no surprise to anyone who has followed politics over the last decade. The FCC faces a very high bar to prove news distortion, and it requires clear evidence of an intentional effort to mislead the public. Without it, this is all political theater.”

WASHINGTON—In a Federal Communications Commission filing, America's Public Television Stations (APTS) and PBS have come out strongly in support of the agency’s push to make the emergency alerting system even more effective and efficient.

“In particular, [public television] supports the Commission’s proposal to permit, but not require, EAS Participants to use software-based EAS encoder/decoder technology, instead of dedicated EAS hardware, to process EAS alerts, with rigorous certification and safeguards to assure the continuing strength and integrity of the EAS,” the filing said.

“In addition, PTV supports other FCC proposals to improve the EAS system, including permitting enhanced EAS geotargeting, allowing the voluntary incorporation of standardized threat-identification symbols into EAS alerts, and, if feasible, implementing a universal alert ID for EAS, WEA and NOAA Weather Radio.”

But the joint filing by the two groups also encouraged “the Commission not to require the installation of this software-based EAS technology within a station’s local service area or at its transmitter site.”

It also argued that the FCC should “ensure that EAS Software security updates do not require a costly subscription or impose other hurdles” on the deployment of software-based systems.

More specifically, the filing noted: “[T]he most immediate benefit of the proposed rule change would be giving EAS Participants the flexibility to select the technology that best enables them to streamline their operations and take advantage of certain technological advances. As the Commission has recognized in other proceedings, broadcast technology is changing rapidly, increasingly making possible a model in which much of the signal chain is deployed remotely, distant from either transmission facilities, a production studio, or both. Software-based EAS systems would fit well into this paradigm, as they would be easy to integrate into virtualized system components or to otherwise operate remotely … Elimination of a device-based EAS requirement could enable broadcasters to further benefit from these technological innovations in remote operations and to reinvest conserved resources into serving their local communities."

"Some public television stations, however, may determine that EAS hardware remains the best solution for their operations and they should be able to continue using this hardware based on their local determinations," the filing by APTS and PBS explained.

“The proposed rule change also would allow additional entrants into the market to supply EAS encoder/decoder technology,” PBS and APTS argued. “Additional competition in this space is likely to lower prices as various vendors, new and old, compete for market share. A more competitive market would allow resource-constrained EAS Participants, including public television stations, to incorporate the EAS systems that are most efficient, cost-effective, and appropriate for their broadcast operations.”

“Local public television stations serve as a backbone of EAS, broadcast additional local public safety information, and provide a reliable redundant path for WEAs through PBS WARN,” APTS and PBS concluded. “They continue to innovate in public safety communications, including through the use of datacasting in ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 as well as through partnerships with federal, state and local emergency response agencies, to protect and serve their local communities. Accordingly, as discussed in these Comments, PTV supports efforts to enhance EAS that will help local public television stations best serve the public safety needs of their local communities.”

The full filing is available here.

Other filings on the topic can be accessed here.

WASHINGTON—The Advanced Warning and Response Network (AWARN) Alliance told the FCC in an electronic filing that the full capabilities of the ATSC 3.0 standard can be realized once NextGen TV broadcast signals “are ubiquitous across the country” and offered recommendations for how the Emergency Alert System (EAS) can be improved.

Regarding 3.0, the alliance reminded the commission that visual enhancements are part of Advanced Emergency Information that can supplement, but not replace, EAS transmissions.

“Advanced Emergency Information (AEI) can take many forms – including symbols, maps, more detailed instructions, additional video files, additional audio information, and more,” the alliance said.

The ability to transmit these files and information to the public will make it possible for broadcasters “to enhance” their connections with the public safety community and “deliver new voluntary alerting tools and capabilities that will save lives and property during emergencies,” it said.

AWARN’s recommendations for how to improve EAS addresses a commission request for comment as part of a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the agency made tentative conclusions about operational and technical functions of EAS and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) and sought input on improvements being considered.

The alliance addressed the security and authentication of government public-warning messages as well as improving the accuracy of alert geotargeting. With regard to the former, the alliance told the commission that these messages should be authenticated regardless of the delivery path used to distribute them to the public—a principle that “applies equally to CAP [Common Alerting Protocol] and legacy EAS.”

“A message that begins in the legacy EAS ecosystem may be relayed, translated, enriched, or made available through multiple downstream services, such as ATSC 3.0 Advanced Emergency Information (AEI). The authenticity of a public warning message should not be lost merely because it originated or traveled over an older signaling path,” the alliance said.

AWARN also told the FCC that rules are needed to close a gap where an EAS participant is required to reject a CAP message with an invalid signature but is permitted to accept an unsigned message. “A valid signature should be required regardless of CAP source,” it said.

This change would do more than protect the legacy EAS ecosystem, but also require a “compact relay-resilient authentication record” that would enable systems downstream to determine whether or not a message is genuine, it said.

AWARN advised the agency to account for the National Weather Service’s continued reliance on NOAA Weather Radio and the weather radar-originated SAME [Specific Area Message Encoding]/EAS pathway.

“NWS modernization schedules may not align with those of EAS manufacturers and broadcasters,” it said. “Until NWS can support the adopted authentication method, the commission could permit EAS participants to continue processing unsigned legacy messages bearing the WXR originator code when received through their designated NWR monitoring assignments.”

The alliance also advised the commission that national and civil EAS alerts should not indefinitely remain unauthenticated.

“AWARN believes there is immediate and critical value in securing National Emergency Messages (EAN), as well as alerts such as Evacuation Immediate, Radiological Hazard Warning, Civil Danger Warning, Hazardous Materials Warning, Shelter in Place Warning, and Law Enforcement Warning, etc.,” it said.

Regarding alert geotargeting, the filing described the use of EAS by broadcasters as a “’cannon ball’ approach” to delivering emergency messages, citing the reach of typical radio and TV broadcasters being up to 60 miles from the transmitter.

While EAS “is best used to reach a large area at one time,” broadcasters evolving to more advanced digital platforms will have the ability to target messages more precisely.

“ATSC 3.0-equipped receivers can offer two-way communications so that receivers know their location (based on local postal zip codes) and so that voluntary AEI messages can be appropriately shared based on location,” the filing said.

AWARN also addressed the use of symbols to speed awareness of emergency situations. It recommended the FCC “permit and encourage” the use of symbology but not require its use.

“A common symbology set used by FEMA, radio and TV broadcasters, and WEA operators would be ideal,” it said.

“Care should be taken to develop or approve a symbol set that is very easy to understand, regardless of the relative size of the symbol. As to whether the FCC should endorse the Visually Integrated Display Symbology (VIDS) or the National Alliance for Public Safety GIS Foundation symbol library, we would urge that decision rest on clarity and ease of use,” it said.

More information is available on the AWARN website.

The National Association of Broadcasters is reiterating its support for allowing the use of EAS software. But the association doesn’t want the FCC to reduce the time required to fix or replace defective EAS software, at least not yet.

As TV Tech sister brand Radio World has reported, the commission recently issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) exploring possible rule changes for EAS and Wireless Emergency Alerts. In addition to proposing EAS software, the commission is looking at certain policy and technical updates to improve the effectiveness of EAS.

[Read Radio World’s four-part series about the proposals and questions in the FNPRM.]

The NAB is among those filing comments. The association applauded the commission for considering allowing EAS participants to install EAS software in a single device.

“The FCC correctly frames the proposed software-based EAS model as an opportunity to better integrate EAS into modern broadcasting IP-centric air chains, enhance public safety, and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on EAS participants,” NAB wrote.

A software approach, the NAB said, would facilitate remote EAS operations, monitoring and collection of performance data.

“This approach will also promote resiliency by enabling EAS operations to be located at multiple local or edge locations and will optimize maintenance by preventing the need to physically diagnose and repair problems within an EAS hardware device.”

The NAB believes that flexibility should be the watchword of a software-based model.

The FNPRM proposes allowing broadcasters to install EAS software in a single server or computer that manages a station’s EAS functions, or within multiple components to facilitate cross-system integration, which NAB is agreeable to.

“A software approach will promote resilient, redundant EAS operations that can be located at both a station’s studio or transmitter,” NAB wrote, “allowing immediate fail-over if the software’s primary location is inaccessible due to fire, flood, or other disaster.”

However, the NAB believes it would be “premature” to reduce the required time for repairing or replacing defective EAS software before notifying the commission.

Under current rules, participants may operate without defective EAS equipment pending its repair or replacement for 60 days without further FCC authority. The commission tentatively proposes to shorten this to 72 hours for those using software.

“There are still too many uncertainties around the implementation of EAS software to change the deadline at this time,” the NAB believes.

The commission said in the FNPRM that although 60 days is usually sufficient for the repair of hardware devices, a shorter amount of time seems reasonable for software that could be fixed with a patch or other remote solution.

NAB also said such a change is impractical since EAS participants test the functionality of their systems and review the logs of tests weekly at most.

Moreover, in many cases, a problem with a software-based model “could have nothing to do with the software itself, but instead [be] related to the server, computer or other hardware on which the software runs, or the firewall or some other component,” NAB wrote.

The association does believe that a shift from dedicated hardware boxes could help alleviate supply chain issues and encourage more vendors to enter the market.

The NAB says “a software approach could ease overall supply chain problems because software does not have to rely on the manufacture of the purpose-built, physical hardware components for new or replacement proprietary EAS boxes in which software is housed. Nor would EAS equipment have to be shipped to manufacturers or EAS Participants.”

The association also supports the FCC’s focus on the cybersecurity of EAS software. It says it believes a software approach will improve security by facilitating updates to address security vulnerabilities through a software patch instead of forcing personnel to upgrade all of their boxes manually or ship the products to a manufacturer.

NAB agrees with the FCC that EAS software should be tested and approved under a conformity assessment system.

It said it is optimistic that some of the Telecommunications Certification Bodies already approved by the FCC to certify EAS devices can perform conformity testing of software, or would develop this capability in response to demand.

The association generally supports other proposals in the FNPRM for improving the authentication and geotargeting of EAS alerts, using a universal alert identification number to reduce duplicative alerts, or integrating visual symbols into EAS.

The NAB does caution the commission against imposing additional mandates “that could outstrip the capabilities of existing EAS devices and require broadcasters to purchase new EAS equipment.”

The group asked the FCC to “avoid reducing the automated simplicity of EAS or limiting broadcasters’ ability to provide EAS alerts consistent with their journalistic judgement.”

Radio World will report shortly on other comments to the FCC. You can read filed comments in PS Docket 25-224 at the FCC site.

The deadline for reply comments is Sept. 29.

The big news in the broadcast industry in August was the Federal Communications Commission’s vote to eliminate its TV-station ownership cap.

Advocates of removing the limit, which bars a single broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of all U.S. TV households, argued that it hindered local stations and their ownership groups from competing effectively with social media giants, digital ad platforms and streaming services—competitors never envisioned in 2004 when the cap was raised from 35% to 39%.

Those favoring its continuation argue that the FCC lacks the authority to eliminate the cap without new legislation, and that the move will promote further media consolidation and a loss of voices in markets.

With all of that said, this really isn’t a column about lifting the cap. Rather, it’s about competition in a government-regulated market and a comment from Gary Weitman, chief communications officer at Nexstar Media Group.

An Aug. 6 Variety.com article quoted Weitman as saying, in part: “The FCC’s decision to eliminate the broadcast ownership cap is a welcome, necessary and long-overdue recognition of today’s competitive landscape, which is dominated by legacy Big Media and Big Tech. For too long, local broadcasters were handcuffed from reaching the scale they needed to compete on a more level playing field by outdated federal rules that didn’t apply to the largest and most powerful companies like Google’s YouTube, Meta’s Instagram or Netflix.”

The comment made me wonder how else local broadcasters have been “handcuffed from” competing “on a more level playing field by outdated federal rules.” If the 22 years since the 39% cap was established is a standard for determining what is “long overdue,” how about the 30 years since Congress and the FCC established rules for the transition from analog to DTV or the 28 years since the first digital TV signals went on air?

Broadcasters are required to use MPEG-2 TS, a compression scheme and digital packaging technology first published in the mid-1990s. Since then, a succession of more-efficient compression algorithms has been released—with the latest (VVC) being 75% to 80% more efficient than MPEG-2. On the packaging and encapsulation side of the ledger, the world began to embrace IP as the World Wide Web gathered steam in the early 1990s.

Now, the television industry waits to see what the FCC will do when it comes to sunsetting ATSC 1.0 so it can fully embrace a new standard that has no restrictions on using the latest—and most efficient—compression schemes as they come along, nor the inability to encapsulate and package bits like the rest of the world.

The hope is the agency will make rules enabling broadcasters to transition by setting up ATSC 1.0 lighthouses to free up channels to take full advantage of the ATSC 3.0 capabilities and services while continuing to transmit legacy DTV to viewers with older sets.

While the FCC and the industry may indeed overcome this hurdle, I am not confident that, in the long run, it is possible to expect a government-regulated industry to compete with unregulated businesses—especially when 20 or 30 years seems to be how long it takes for the regulator to modernize rules, and unregulated competitors can pivot on a dime.

WASHINGTON—Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr announced the appointment of Hunter Deeley as Chief of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. Hunter has served as Chief of Staff and Deputy Bureau Chief in the Enforcement Bureau.

“I am pleased that Hunter has agreed to step up and lead the exceptional and dedicated Enforcement Bureau team,” Carr said. “I’m confident that under his leadership the team will continue to deliver great wins for the American people from robocall enforcement to rooting out fraud to national security administration. I’d like to thank Patrick Webre for his outstanding service in this role and I’m pleased that he will continue to serve the Commission in a senior role in the Office of Managing Director.”

As part of the Enforcement Bureau team, Hunter supervised all enforcement matters that directly or indirectly implicate national security risks while coordinating closely with law enforcement and Intelligence Community partners throughout the U.S. Government.

Prior to joining the FCC, Hunter was at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he served in the National Security Division’s Foreign Investment Review Section handling matters before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and Team Telecom.

During that time, he received multiple Assistant Attorney General Awards for Excellence for his work.

He also served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, where he was assigned to the General Crimes Section (Superior Court Division) and National Security Section (Criminal Division).

Hunter is a graduate of the University of Virginia and the American University Washington College of Law.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission has issued a Report & Order that will raise regulatory fees for broadcast TV stations for its fiscal year 2026 by more than 6%. The regulatory fee schedules also include increases for radio stations.

Overall the agency expects to receive about $417,186,925 in revenue in fiscal year 2026, up about 6.5% from $391,734,169 in FY25. Total regulatory fee revenue from digital TV is expected to rise to $24,800,820 in FY26, up 5.9% from $23,412,392 in FY25.

The fees will be due by the end of September.

In issuing the ruling, the FCC rejected pleas that it expand the companies who are required to pay regulatory fees to such sectors as virtual MVPDs like YouTube TV.

It also rejected a variety of arguments by the NAB and state broadcaster associations that would have lowered fees and provided more detail on how the fees are calculated.

The full list of regulatory fees for TV stations by call signs is available on page 71 in Appendix F of the Report and Order.

WASHINGTON—A new filing with the Federal Communications Commission indicates that lawyers for HC2 Broadcasting Holdings (HC2) had a videoconference on August 25 with Allison Howell, legal advisor to Chairman Carr as part of the company’s ongoing push for 5G broadcasting.

During the call, they discussed the status of HC2’s pending Petition for Rulemaking asking the Commission to initiate a rulemaking to authorize the 5G Broadcast transmission standard for Low Power Television (LPTV) stations on a voluntary basis. During the meeting they also presented slides laying out a variety of reasons why the agency should move forward with issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to authorize the 5G Broadcast standard.

In 2025, the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau sought public comments on a Petition for Rulemaking from HC2 Broadcasting Holdings that asked the regulator to allow low-power television (LPTV) stations to use the 5G Broadcast transmission standard as an alternative to the currently authorized ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0.

HC2, which owns and operates more than 250 LPTV stations nationwide, filed the request March 28, 2025. FCC received 29 comments and 8 reply comments.

The proposal was greeted with favorable comments from the LPTV industry while some broadcasters and the ATSC raised concerns.

In the slide presentation, HC2 laid out a number of policy reasons for authorizing 5G broadcasts, including:

• 5G broadcast will be available directly to viewers on ubiquitous mobile devices once enabled – cannot be more local than wherever the viewer happens to be
• It offers expanded public safety and location capabilities with a “resiliency layer”
• Programming services will be free to air, with no digital rights management or paywalls
• It provides expanded spectrum for 5G uses
• Opens opportunities for LPTV stations to offer enhanced programming, datacasting, and connectivity
• The proposal is completely voluntary and would let LPTV stations choose 1.0, 3.0 or 5G
• 5G broadcasting requires no tuner mandate and raises no MVPD carriage issues.

The full slide deck backing 5G broadcasting proposals is available here.

WASHINGTON—The FCC adopted a Report and Order amending rules around captioning registration and certification requirements. Under the new rules, video programmers do not need to register and certify to the captioning rules if they provide programs only to public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels that are exempt from captioning requirements.

Additionally, if a non-broadcast network certifies that all of its programming is either exempt from or in compliance with the captioning rules, that network’s individual video programmers do not need to register and certify to the captioning rules.

The regulator stressed that the changes will not do not go into effect right away. First, the Office of Management and Budget must complete its review of these changes. After that, the changes must be published in the Federal Register.

Once those steps are finished, the FCC will issue a Public Notice announcing the effective date of these changes.

The Report and Order is available here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has sided with four Democrats running for Congress in a decision that would limit the organizations and groups who are entitled to discounted political advertising under Federal Communication Commission rules.

The ruling is important for broadcasters because an FCC Public Notice scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 4 would have expanding the types of advertisers and groups who could be eligible for discounted ads. This could significantly reduce the revenue broadcasters get from political advertising in the hotly contested upcoming midterms.

In opposing the Public Notice, Commissioner Anna Gomez emphasized the potential harm to stations by arguing that "broadcasters are being directed to slash prices and sell their most valuable inventory during their busiest and most lucrative season, even as this same FCC has spent months arguing broadcasters need economic and regulatory relief to compete with Big Tech and streaming. You cannot claim broadcasters are struggling to survive and then force them into a fire sale on the one thing that could actually help them compete and increase revenue."

At the end of March, the Media Bureau issued a Public Notice with guidance on who is entitled to the discounted advertising rates under the “FCC’s lowest unit charge (LUC) requirements” that appeared to expand the eligibility for discounted ads. That Notice argued that that “the LUC requirements are applicable to (1) authorized committees, including authorized committees that engage in joint fundraising with legally qualified candidates for federal office, and (2) advertisements that qualify as coordinated expenditures of political parties and legally qualified candidates for federal office.”

This was challenged by the Television Bureau of Advertising but on August 13, the Media Bureau rejected the TVB’s petition asking the agency to reconsider its ruling, arguing that the agency hadn’t actually changed any of its rules.

Separately, four candidates for Congress filed an emergency motion in June with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to block the FCC’s interpretation of the rules for discounted political ads.

The suit (Case No. 26-1785) was brought by Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, Georgia Senate candidate Jon Ossoff, North Carolina Senate candidate Roy Cooper and Michigan congressional candidate Kristen McDonald Rivet, all Democrats.

In an August 25th ruling, the court granted the emergency motion.

“The Petition for Review before us challenges the [FCC’s] Public Notice, which takes effect on September 4, 2026, for the impending November general election,” the court noted. “The four petitioners [contend]...that the Public Notice contravenes the plain language of the LUC requirement and pertinent campaign finance statutes. In the Federal Candidates’ words, the Public Notice “unlawfully dilutes [their] and other candidates’ statutory right to buy advertising time at lowest unit charge by insisting that broadcasters make that same right available to political parties and joint fundraising committees in circumstances where their spending cannot, under campaign finance law, be considered spending by or on behalf of a candidate.’”

“On the other side of this dispute are the FCC, as a respondent, and the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (together, the “Party Committees”), as intervenors. The FCC and the Party Committees separately — but similarly — argue both that we lack jurisdiction to review the Public Notice and that the Public Notice is correct on the merits,” the ruling explained.

After reviewing the arguments, the court concluded that “we are confident of our jurisdiction to review the Public Notice. Further, we conclude that the LUC requirement and campaign finance statutes are clear that neither political parties nor joint fundraising committees with non-candidate members can be entitled to the LUC. We therefore grant the Petition for Review, such that we set aside and hold for naught the Public Notice.”

The full ruling is available here.

WASHINGTON—FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez has issued a strongly worded statement blasting Media Bureau guidance on political advertising rules that she says unlawfully expands the political entities and groups that qualify for discounted broadcast advertising rates.

She contended that the Media Bureau is now allowing joint fundraising committees and party committees to purchase airtime at the same steep discount, just weeks before voting starts in the fall general midterm election. The discount window opens September 4, 2026.

The issue is an important one for the ad revenue broadcasters can expect in the last half of 2026.

While broadcasters are increasingly reliant on political advertising during election years, the requirement that they provide inventory at discounted rates to an expended group of buyers could hurt revenue and make it difficult for stations to serve their tradition advertising clients.

At the end of March, the Media Bureau issued a Public Notice with guidance on who is entitled to the discounted advertising rates under the “FCC’s lowest unit charge (LUC) requirements. As discussed below, the LUC requirements are applicable to (1) authorized committees, including authorized committees that engage in joint fundraising with legally qualified candidates for federal office, and (2) advertisements that qualify as coordinated expenditures of political parties and legally qualified candidates for federal office.”

This was challenged by the Television Bureau of Advertising, which is funded by broadcasters and on August 13, the Media Bureau rejected the TVB’s petition asking the agency to reconsider its ruling, arguing that the agency hadn’t actually changed any of its rules.

Gomez rejected those arguments in a statement saying that “In the final stretch of a national election, this FCC is unleashing a flood of coordinated campaign money into broadcast advertising, just as the Supreme Court has cleared the way for unlimited coordinated spending between parties and candidates, This unprecedented, last-minute decision gives the biggest political spenders an even bigger advantage over everyone else by expanding the candidate-only discount established by law to joint fundraising and party committees, an advantage that will make it hard for anyone else to catch up before Election Day.”

“Broadcasters are being directed to slash prices and sell their most valuable inventory during their busiest and most lucrative season, even as this same FCC has spent months arguing broadcasters need economic and regulatory relief to compete with Big Tech and streaming,” she added. “You cannot claim broadcasters are struggling to survive and then force them into a fire sale on the one thing that could actually help them compete and increase revenue.

Gomez also argued that the move was illegal.

“Even more concerning, this decision was made behind closed doors by agency staff, not by the full Commission, and it contradicts what this administration itself told the Supreme Court less than a year ago about who qualifies for this discount,” she noted. “In direct conflict with the administration’s position, the FCC relies on alleged staff-level guidance that was never provided in writing and that nobody could find, and adopted it with no opportunity for the public to weigh in. The American people should not have sweeping election-year rule changes forced on them in the dark, on the eve of an election, without an opportunity for public input. It is past time this Commission listens to them, not to the billionaires seeking to empty their pockets into dark money groups to try to influence the outcome of this upcoming election.”

In its August 13 dismissal of the TVB's challenge the Media Bureau noted that the “TVB argues that the Bureau’s Public Notice broke new substantive ground, and their Petition thus seeks reconsideration of what they contend is a new and final agency action.”

The FCC’s Media Bureau rejected that argument by contending that “the Public Notice merely reminds the public, going into an election season, of the agency’s longstanding and previous decisions regarding the scope of LUC obligations. It simply collects in one place prior FCC orders and other relevant authority so that a wide range of stakeholders can be aware of existing law. Such a reminder is not a decision or action that can be challenged through a petition for reconsideration.”

In addition, the Media Bureau argued that “insofar as TVB’s Petition takes issue with prior agency guidance, the time for challenging that prior guidance has passed” and “ there is nothing in the Public Notice that reopened those issues or underlying guidance sufficient to provide TVB with a right to challenge them through a petition for reconsideration of the Public Notice.”

The Media Bureau also argued that “the FCC’s existing interpretations of the LUC requirements...further confirms that the Public Notice broke no new ground; it did not change the status quo. As always, if there are particular instances in which a party wishes to challenge a station’s application of the LUC in a specific case, the agency can adjudicate those disputes on a case-by-case basis consistent with FCC precedent.”

The full copy of the Media Bureau’s rejection of the TVB petition is available here.

WASHINGTON—A federal judge has set a hearing in the ABC lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission for sometime in the week of October 5.

On August 18, ABC filed a lawsuit against the FCC in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case #26-cv-2902). It also filed a motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, saying the court’s intervention "is necessary to stop the [FCC’s] extraordinary assault on free speech."

FCC Chair Brendan Carr has called the suit “meritless.”

ABC had been seeking quick court action on the motion and had asked for a hearing as early as August 24.

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan instead issued an order setting a hearing for sometime during the week of October 5. She said however that she would move the hearing on the Temporary Restraining Order up if the FCC took action in the proceedings.

The FCC took the ruling as a victory. “We are pleased that the judge has now rejected Disney’s meritless attempt to rush into court,” a FCC spokesperson said. “The court also sided with the FCC over Disney on the schedule going forward and has declined Disney’s request for an immediate injunction. The FCC will continue to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”

Free speech is easy to defend when we agree with the speaker. The real test comes when someone says something we find offensive, foolish or downright wrong.

That is why conservatives should pay close attention to the controversy surrounding Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr and ABC. This is not fundamentally about Jimmy Kimmel, liberal media bias or whether Americans enjoy late-night television. It is about something much more important: Should the federal government use its regulatory power to pressure broadcasters because government officials dislike what is being said on the air?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), certainly no liberal, understood the danger immediately.

After Carr warned that broadcasters could face consequences following Kimmel’s controversial comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Cruz objected strongly. He compared Carr’s “easy way or hard way” language to something out of a mob movie.

Cruz’s larger point was common sense: Conservatives may enjoy seeing a liberal television personality put under pressure today, but what happens when political power changes hands?

Imagine a Democratic FCC chairman telling a conservative television network: Change your programming, discipline your host or your broadcast licenses may receive some special attention.

Conservatives would rightly be outraged.

The Constitution does not change depending upon which political party controls Washington.

Government should not be deciding which political opinions are acceptable. It should not be rewarding friendly broadcasters and intimidating hostile ones. And it certainly should not be using licenses, investigations or regulatory reviews as political weapons.

ABC has now gone to court, arguing that the FCC’s actions were motivated, at least in significant part, by hostility toward viewpoints expressed in its programming. That allegation will have to be tested in court. But the broader constitutional principle should not require a judge to explain it to us.

Government retaliation against speech is dangerous whether the target is MS NOW, Fox News, ABC, a conservative radio host or a liberal comedian.

We have seen versions of this movie before.

For decades, conservatives complained with considerable justification about government policies that could pressure broadcasters over their programming. The old Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial public issues. Whatever its original intentions, conservatives came to understand that government supervision of “fairness” could easily become government supervision of political speech.

There is also the history of Rupert Murdoch. In the 1980s, Congress passed legislation that specifically interfered with temporary FCC waivers affecting Murdoch’s newspaper and television holdings in New York and Boston. A federal appeals court ultimately found that Congress had improperly singled him out.

The lesson should have lasted longer than one generation.

The Supreme Court expressed the principle beautifully all the way back in 1886. A law can look perfectly fair on paper yet become unconstitutional when government officials enforce it with what the Court famously called “an evil eye and an unequal hand.”

Put that into everyday language: Government cannot use neutral-looking rules to punish people it doesn’t like.

That principle applies equally to Republicans and Democrats.

There is an even simpler answer for conservatives who believe ABC, Disney or other major media organizations are hopelessly liberal.

Compete.

That is what free-market capitalism is supposed to mean.

Build better television networks. Create stronger digital platforms. Invest in newspapers. Finance filmmakers and documentary producers. Develop new streaming services. Support talented conservative journalists, comedians and commentators. And if wealthy conservatives believe an existing media company can be run better, they are perfectly free to buy shares, organize investors and attempt to acquire control through lawful market transactions.

Elon Musk bought Twitter and transformed it into X. Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post. Wealthy Americans routinely invest in media organizations because they understand the enormous influence that comes with controlling platforms and distributing ideas.

That is capitalism.

Using government regulatory power to frighten media companies is something very different.

I have spent much of my professional life in broadcasting and media. I know firsthand that broadcasters operate in a regulated environment. The public airwaves are not identical to a printing press or someone’s personal social-media account. The FCC has legitimate responsibilities involving spectrum, licensing, ownership and technical standards.

But those legitimate responsibilities make restraint even more important.

When the same government agency that regulates your license begins criticizing your political programming, every broadcaster understands the enormous imbalance of power.

That is precisely why conservatives should be especially careful.

We spent decades warning that government bureaucracies could be weaponized against people because of their politics. We cannot suddenly decide that weaponization is acceptable when our side controls the weapon.

Jimmy Kimmel can be criticized. Viewers can turn him off. Advertisers can walk away. ABC executives can fire him. Competitors can defeat him in the marketplace.

Those are all consequences of freedom.

But government intimidation is not the answer.

The First Amendment was not written to protect popular speech. Popular speech rarely needs protection. It exists precisely because unpopular, irritating and offensive speech will inevitably tempt those in power to silence it.

Today the target may be a liberal comedian.

Tomorrow it could be a conservative broadcaster.

If we believe in free speech, we must defend the principle even when we dislike the person exercising it.

And if conservatives believe liberal media organizations have too much influence, the answer is wonderfully American:

Compete with them. Outperform them. Or buy them.

Just don’t ask the government to silence them.

WASHINGTON—In response to ABC’s lawsuit seeking to block the FCC’s early license renewal proceedings for ABC-owned stations, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has blasted the lawsuit as “a meritless case based on their own campaign of disinformation,” and insisted that “the FCC will follow the facts and the law wherever they go.”

In a post on X, which Carr regularly uses to make policy pronouncements, the agency’s Chair once again insisted that FCC rules regarding the public interest requirements of broadcast licenses give the agency authority to regulate programming.

“All broadcasters have an obligation to operate in the public interest—even Disney,” he posted. “Indeed, broadcasters made a deal with the American public—in exchange for free access to a valuable public resource (the airwaves) they agreed to meet their public interest obligations. This sets them apart from cable channels or podcasts or newspapers.”

In a video accompanying the post, he also stressed that the FCC has not made an official decision on its DEI investigation but added that the investigation must have unsettled Disney.

"We have made no decision, but now Disney has rushed to court to try to stop the FCC from moving forward," he said. "And apparently, I guess Disney must be very concerned and worried about that production."

[The video is available if you click on "see more" of the X post pasted below.]

On August 18, ABC filed a blistering First Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, asking a federal court in the nation's capital to stop the controversial early broadcast license renewal proceedings ordered by the regulator.

The FCC instituted the proceeding as part of its investigation into DEI policies at the Disney and the ABC-owned stations in April, a decision that has drawn widespread condemnation from broadcasters, former FCC officials and others.

WASHINGTON—ABC has filed a blistering First Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, asking a federal court in the nation's capital to stop the controversial early broadcast license renewal proceedings ordered by the regulator.

The FCC instituted the proceeding as part of its investigation into DEI policies at the Disney and the ABC-owned stations in April, a decision that has drawn widespread condemnation from broadcasters, including the NAB, the FCC’s lone Democrat Commissioner Anna Gomez, free speech advocates, 13 former FCC officials, some conservative groups and the public. Around 95% of 153,318 comments filed in the proceeding have been in support of the license renewals.

“All broadcasters have a legal obligation to operate in the public interest—even Disney. The FCC has been examining claims that Disney engaged in illegal DEI discrimination for over a year,” an FCC spokesperson told TheWrap. “Disney is obviously very concerned about the FCC’s proceeding, as evidenced by their ongoing campaign of disinformation as well as their decision to ask a court to stop the FCC from further pursuing matters. The FCC will continue to follow the facts and law wherever they lead.”

As part of the lawsuit, which was filed with U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case #26-cv-2902), ABC also filed a motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on August 18.

In the motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ABC said that “This case boils down to a simple question: can the Administration use its control over the federal regulatory apparatus to punish a media organization for editorial decisions and news coverage it dislikes? Because the First Amendment provides a clear answer—of course not—this Court’s intervention is necessary to stop the Federal Communications Commission’s extraordinary assault on free speech.”

In the full complaint, ABC stressed that “Government censorship is deeply un-American. That fundamental principle predates the Republic, with our Founders recognizing that “the freedom of the press is one of the great[est] bulwarks of liberty.’ And it is no less true today, as the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed only two years ago: the government may not `use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’ This case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that. Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.”

Citing social media posts from President Donald Trump and a long list of comments by the president and FCC Chair Brendan Carr, the complaint also alleges that the retaliatory campaign “began in this Administration’s earliest days and has only intensified since. Again and again, the Administration has attacked ABC’s speech—the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air. Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech.”

“Facing this existential threat, Plaintiffs have no choice but to seek redress from the judicial branch for the Administration’s blatant retaliation for their First Amendment speech,” the complaint said. “Plaintiffs come to this Court reluctantly with no alternative means to eliminate these ongoing and immediate threats other than total capitulation to the Administration’s demands.”

The Complaint also detailed how the FCC’s actions created “irreparable harm,” both to the company and the media industry.

“The pressure exerted by the Administration’s mounting campaign of retaliation against ABC has been deeply felt throughout the company,” the complaint said. “The campaign is also calculated to operate in terrorem upon the rest of the industry: ABC is the visible target and suffers the most immediate harm, but the message is addressed to every broadcaster in the country, and the ultimate cost is borne by the press as a whole.”

In addition, “the FCC’s demand for early renewal applications reveals its intent to either hold a hearing to deny the applications or simply to subject Plaintiffs to months—and likely years—of onerous litigation and regulatory uncertainty. Either way, the agency succeeds at continuing to punish Plaintiffs.”

In a separate motion, ABC argued that the “Court should grant Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order preventing the Commission from taking any further action with respect to its retaliatory early renewal application order and enter a preliminary injunction that halts the early renewals proceedings—and associated threats of revocation in response to ABC’s protected editorial discretion—pending the resolution of this case.”

In response to the complaint, Commissioner Gomez said in a statement that “for months, the FCC has waged a campaign of censorship and control against Disney’s ABC stations, using the threat of broadcast license revocations to punish a company for speech this administration doesn’t like. I have long called on companies to push back against this kind of government intimidation, and I’m glad Disney has shown courage and stepped up. This should be a welcome sign for every broadcaster who has felt the weight of this overreaching government pressure in silence.”

“I am hopeful that this will mark the beginning of the end of this administration’s disregard for the Constitution and the law, and that the coming months will bring the costly legal defeat this agency has been asking for since it started down this path,” she added. “It is time this administration understands that the Constitution does not bend to political convenience, and that the First Amendment protects the news and commentary Americans see on their screens even when those in power wish it didn’t.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern said, "t’s about time for someone to take Carr and his FCC to court over their endless campaign of intimidation and retaliation against journalism that displeases Carr’s thin-skinned boss. No matter what pretexts he asserts, Carr’s modus operandi is clear: to serve as Trump’s censorship czar and abuse his office to repeatedly and exclusively target Trump’s perceived adversaries in the media, whether through sham proceedings or threatening letters and X posts. Carr knows the FCC is not the journalism police and said so regularly himself before he decided to throw away any integrity he once had to kiss up to Trump. Countless others whose First Amendment rights have been chilled by Carr’s antics should follow Disney’s lead.”

David Inserra, a fellow for free expression and technology at the Cato Institute said in a statement that "the current FCC has repeatedly used its power over broadcast speech to jawbone, punish, and threaten censorship of its political opponents. Today's lawsuit by ABC Disney against the FCC directly challenges the broad and abusive powers that Congress and prior court decisions gave the FCC. No government agency should ever be empowered to restrict free expression based on what it thinks is fair, equal, or in the best interest of the public. In a world where the American people and press can speak through print, broadcast, cable, satellite, internet, and other forms of media, there is no justification for the FCC to continue to wield such significant power over broadcast speech."

[More comments will be added as they come in.]