WASHINGTON—On Thursday the FCC’s Media Bureau announced the approval of Nexstar’s acquisition of Tegna, a deal that has tested the limits of existing broadcast ownership rules.

The merger, valued at about $6.2 billion, will give Nexstar coverage of about 80% of U.S. households, controlling 265 stations across 44 states and Washington D.C., with Nexstar now owning major affiliates (ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX) in 132 of the country’s 210 television markets. Such coverage gives Nexstar nearly double the 39% ownership limit typically allowed by the FCC.

In response to the approval, AGs in eight states filed to block the merger, claiming that it would increase costs for consumers and “consolidate newsrooms of previously separate Big 4 stations, degrading the content and quality of local news broadcasts.”

Since announced last August, just weeks after a federal appeals court vacated the FCC’s top four station ownership rule, the deal was perhaps the most brazen attempt by station groups to test FCC Chairman Carr’s attitude towards revising broadcast ownership rules. Broadcasters claim current rules are hampering their ability to compete with similar media operations owned by Big Tech. The FCC is currently in the public comment phase of considering new ownership rules as part of its 2022 Quadrennial Regulatory Review.

Carr—who has long advocated for such changes, applauded the court’s ruling last summer.

“For decades, the FCC’s approach to regulating the broadcast industry has failed to promote the public interest,” he said in August. “That has only made it harder for trusted and local sources of news and information to compete in today’s media environment. And that is why I dissented from the Biden-era FCC’s decision to retain a regulation that does not match marketplace realities. I am pleased to see that the court agrees and has vacated that regulation.”

Even more important was that the Trump administration approved of the deal, although it was based more on his dislike of “fake news,” than about ownership. Democrats in Congress lobbied against the merger, which also drew widespread media industry opposition from DirecTV, labor groups and even the right wing Newsmax cable channel.

To get to yes, Nexstar successfully obtained a waiver from the commission based on the company’s argument that the industry "needed more scale." Nexstar also made formal commitments to invest in local news and take steps to prevent the merger from leading to higher pay TV bills. In addition, Nexstar agreed to divest itself of the following TV stations:

• Little Rock, Arkansas (KNWA)
• New Orleans, Louisiana (WUPL)
• Indianapolis, Indiana (WTHR)
• Norfolk, Virginia (WAVY)
• New Haven, Connecticut (WCTX)
• Denver, Colorado (KTVD)

Perhaps trying to avoid a public protest that broke out during an FCC meeting last fall, the commission chose to approve the merger in a meeting that was closed to the public, which drew criticism from Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the commission, who opposed the merger.

“The FCC has once again chosen bureaucratic cover over public accountability. This merger was approved behind closed doors with no open process, no full Commission vote, and no transparency for the consumers and communities who will bear the consequences," Gomez said in a statement. "A transaction of this magnitude, which includes new and novel issues before the FCC, demands open deliberation before the full Commission, not a quiet sign-off meant to avoid public scrutiny. Given the increasingly alarming pace of reckless media consolidation, the American public deserves to know how and why this decision was made.

Although Gomez acknowledged the financial pressures local TV newsrooms are under, she said the Nexstar deal will not ameliorate such concerns.

"Across the country, newsrooms are being consolidated, reporters laid off, and editorial decisions made far from the communities broadcast stations are licensed to serve,:" she said. "The Nexstar/TEGNA merger will accelerate exactly that trend, concentrating broadcast power in fewer corporate hands, shrinking independent editorial voices, and prioritizing national business interests over local needs. Nexstar has already begun cutting newsrooms throughout the country, and as these billion-dollar companies grow even larger, their increased negotiating leverage will drive up fees that translate into higher monthly bills for those families who can least afford them. The consequences of this rubber stamp approval will be felt in living rooms and newsrooms across the country, resulting in fewer voices, less competition, and higher costs for consumers.”

As expected, the National Association of Broadcaster applauded the result.

“While NAB does not take a position on the merits of any individual transaction, today’s action by the FCC and DOJ to approve the Nexstar-Tegna merger is a meaningful sign that the Commission understands the urgent need for ownership reform,” NAB President Curtis LeGeyt said in a statement.

“We are grateful to Chairman Brendan Carr for his recognition that the national ownership cap is outdated and no longer reflects today’s media marketplace. This decision is an important acknowledgement that the media marketplace has changed and giving stations the ability to achieve greater scale is essential to sustaining trusted local journalism and emergency reporting. We look forward to continuing to work with the Commission as it modernizes its rules to ensure that broadcasters can continue to serve their local communities across the nation.”

The following is an opinion piece from Michael Petricone, SVP, Government & Regulatory Affairs with the Consumer Technology Association:

Broadcasters benefit from one of the largest government giveaways in American history: free, exclusive access to the public airwaves. As Americans increasingly consume content in new ways, it’s time to rethink that approach and consider reallocating the spectrum to serve consumers and the broader economy.

During the first half of the 20th century, radio and television were breakthrough technologies. Spectrum allocated for broadcasting helped connect the country with local news, information, and entertainment in a way that had never been possible before. That access was always a temporary license to serve the public interest, subject to renewal by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Today, fewer than 9% of Americans access broadcast TV programming solely using an antenna, with many instead using streaming, mobile, and on-demand platforms to get the same local content. Despite this declining viewership of over-the-air TV, broadcasters still control vast swaths of prime spectrum that could be put to more efficient use.

Now, broadcasters want even more, including looser ownership rules so they can merge, consolidate, and entrench their position. Before Congress hands out new favors, it should look at reclaiming underused broadcast spectrum. We can’t afford to reward inefficient use of public airwaves and shut the door on more efficient uses of spectrum – especially when unlicensed spectrum is so valuable. The limited amount of unlicensed spectrum available today generates $95.8 billion per year in sales to our economy.

Spectrum powers many of the technologies we rely on today, and next-generation advances in AI, advanced manufacturing, precision health, 6G, autonomous mobility, and defense systems will require expanded access to it.

It’s long past time to reset the system. At CES 2026, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr suggested that “if you want to continue broadcasting without the public interest obligation, then let everyone have a fair and free shot at purchasing that spectrum.” He’s right.

An “Incentive Auction 2.0” would allow the federal government to reclaim this spectrum, auction it openly, and let the market allocate it to its highest and best uses, while generating needed government revenue. Policymakers should start asking broadcasters some tough questions and looking for opportunities to put spectrum to its highest value use.

Everyone should compete on equal terms. No more freebies. No more special favors that distort the market and advantage legacy broadcasters over their competitors. If a business model works, it will survive without government protection.

We know this approach works. When the FCC began auctioning spectrum in the 1990s, it sparked one of the greatest waves of investment and innovation in modern history. Wireless networks expanded, smartphones emerged, and the mobile economy took off.

The same holds true for convening another auction of broadcast spectrum, which would boost economic growth, improve connectivity, and help American companies compete against global rivals. As China reallocates spectrum aggressively to strengthen its technological edge, the United States cannot afford to let ours sit idle.

The airwaves belong to the American people. It is time for the FCC to take the spectrum back and allow the market to determine its most efficient use.

What do you think? Drop us a line at tvtechnology@futurenet.com

Before diving in, I want to make clear that what motivates me to write this post isn’t ABC’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel nor the ending of Stephen Colbert’s show by CBS. My interest in watching late night network television ended when Craig Ferguson left the "Late Late Show" at the end of 2014 followed in mid-2015 by the departure of David Letterman from the Late Show. I tried watching their late-night replacement for a while as well as the other offerings, but I didn’t find the content to be sufficiently entertaining or compelling enough to hold my interest.

What motivates this is reading this blog post from NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. He makes some great points about the protection of the First Amendment and the propensity for government to try and pressure broadcasters to a particular slant on their coverage. As Mr. LeGeyt points out, it is nothing new and it is wrong and I agree wholeheartedly with him on these two statements. He concludes that protecting the First Amendment is “essential for the health of our democracy” which I also agree with.

Where I have concern is in the change in “local station” ownership. While I started working in local radio broadcasting in the 1970’s, I spent most of my career working in local television broadcasting beginning in 1982 so I’m going to focus my comments on local television.

The 1980’s were an interesting time for local television. Prior to 1985, a single entity could only own seven television stations nationwide which was part of the 7-7-7 rule (7 AM stations, 7 FM stations, 7 television stations). In 1985 the cap was raised to 12-12-12 and the collective reach of the 12 television stations could not exceed 25% of the total television households nationwide.

The percentage of households covered was increased to 39% sometime later and thanks to maintaining the UHF discount (a curious holdover from the 1985 ownership rules update), an entity can now own multiple stations in the same market and potentially cover significantly more than 39% of television household nationally.

So where we currently stand is that according to the FCC’s latest tally (June, 2025), there are 1,384 commercial television stations in the United States. As best as I can determine by searching the web, as of 2020/2022 about 30 owners’ control more than 1,000 of these stations. Currently there is a move to revise or eliminate the ownership caps and assuming that happens, I expect that most of the smallest owners and many of the mid-sized owners will be acquired by the largest owners and significantly fewer than 30 owners will control significantly more than 1,000 of the commercial television stations.

So what does all this have to do with concern over the First Amendment? Well, if you peruse the business plans and reports of most large companies, the metrics of success for the company and its leadership are often shareholder value and profitability. The reports often include plans for consolidation or centralization of services as a means of reducing operating costs and improving operational efficiency.

In a structure such as this, government pressure like Mr. LeGeyt describes becomes potentially easier and more effective. Threatening license renewal at the national level on a few large organizations that own and directly control the vast majority of local stations could certainly negatively impact the real or perceived shareholder value and profitability of the organization. This in turn could potentially generate a climate of national owners telling their local stations’ leadership to get in line with what they cover and how they cover it regardless of local community needs or sentiment.

I understand the need for broadcasting companies to grow to stay competitive with Big Tech but as we have seen in many businesses that consolidate, the mission and commitment to serving the customer is often diluted or completely abandoned in favor of the bottom line. It’s not hard to imagine maintaining shareholder value being in direct opposition to maintaining First Amendment rights.

When I started working in broadcasting, stations were licensed to operate in the public interest. Station ownership was limited to ensure that there were diverse voices in the market. Stations were required to regularly and proactively engage with the communities they served and document those findings.

While the media ecosystem has certainly changed, maybe broadcast station owners need to relook at those metrics and find a way to ensure that the local stations they own meet the needs and expectations of the communities they serve. Local stations may be “the most trusted source of information” but only as long as the local community sees them as local and worthy of their trust.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission has released an updated agenda for its Open Meeting on Tuesday, September 30, 2025.

The agenda includes a vote on proposals for “a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would advance the Commission’s quadrennial regulatory review of its broadcast ownership rules and seek public comment on whether, given the current state of the media marketplace, it should retain, modify, or eliminate any of these rules.”

The agency has not yet released materials relating to the Open Meeting and the various items on the agenda, including the NPR for the ownership review.

The FCC described the items on the agenda as follows:

• Accelerating Wireline Infrastructure Buildout (WC Docket No. 25-253)
• SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Inquiry that would examine whether state and local statutes, regulations, and legal requirements have an unlawful prohibitive effect on the provision of wireline telecommunications services, particularly through the imposition of excessive delays and fees that impede infrastructure deployments and disincentivize investments in them.
• Freeing Wireless Infrastructure from Unlawful Regulatory Burdens (WT Docket No. 25-276)
• The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that advances its Build America Agenda by seeking comment on reforms that would free towers and other wireless infrastructure from unlawful regulatory burdens imposed at the state and local level.
• Phone Jamming Solutions in Non-Federal Correctional Facilities (GN Docket No. 13-111)
• SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on removing regulatory barriers to deployment and viability of existing and developing technologies that combat contraband wireless device use in correctional facilities.
• Modernizing Broadcast Ownership Rules (MB Docket No. 22-459)
• The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would advance the Commission’s quadrennial regulatory review of its broadcast ownership rules and seek public comment on whether, given the current state of the media marketplace, it should retain, modify, or eliminate any of these rules.
• Deleting Obsolete and Duplicative Wireline Rules (GN Docket No. 25-133)
• SUMMARY: The Commission will consider as part of the In re: Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding a Direct Final Rule that would move to delete nearly 400 primarily wireline-related rules and requirements that govern obsolete technology, are duplicative, and are no longer used in practice. These rules pertain to a wide variety of now-defunct topics including regulatory reporting requirements, distinctions between wireline carriers that are no longer applied, technology that has been eclipsed, and dates pertaining to pricing, universal service, pilot programs, and equipment requirements that have long ago passed.
• Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries (WC Docket No. 13-184)
• SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Declaratory Ruling that would align E-Rate eligibility with section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and clarify that the provision of Wi-Fi, or other similar access point technologies, including the equipment needed to provide such service, on school buses is ineligible for E-Rate funding.
• Addressing the Homework Gap through the E-Rate Program (WC Docket No. 21-31)
• SUMMARY: The Commission will consider an Order on Reconsideration that grants a petition for reconsideration and finds that section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, does not permit the funding of off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and Internet services and makes them ineligible for E-Rate support.

The Open 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.

WASHINGTON—The union representing broadcast technicians is pushing back against a major effort by the National Association of Broadcasters and station owners to eliminate the ownership rules governing over-the-air TV stations.

Union NABET-CWA (the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians–Communications Workers of America) has filed a letter with the FCC arguing that lifting the ownership regulations is unnecessary, not in the public interest and outside of the regulator’s authority. Joining NABET-CWA in filing the letter were the American Economic Liberties Project, the Open Markets Institute and United Church of Christ, Office of Communications.

The letter was filed in the FCC’s docket for public comments called “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete,” which has drawn lengthy filings and letters from NAB, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, state broadcasting associations, America’s Public Television Stations, PBS, Nexstar Media Group, Sinclair, Gray Media, Mission Broadcasting and many individual TV stations. Many of those filings, including those from NAB, Nexstar, Sinclair and Gray Media, have focused on the need to eliminate ownership rules.

In their letter , NABET and the other groups argued that “we write to emphasize that the Commission should not remove or modify the national or local media ownership rules.”

“The request for comments in this docket was outside of regular Commission practice, was not adopted by vote of the Commission or by staff under identified delegated authority, and is not a notice of proposed rulemaking or a notice of inquiry,” the letter said. “As such, any steps the Commission might take in response to comments that are filed would require further notice of proposed rulemaking or procedure to comply with FCC rules and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires notice of a proposed change in the Federal Register in order to change rules, whether to adopt new rules or modify or ‘delete’ rules.”

In addition, the letter noted that those arguing for the deletion of ownership rules have overemphasized changes to the news landscape. “Broadcasting continues to be unique and essential to local news and democracy, and streaming video and websites are not a replacement for local broadcasting," the letter argued. "The pro-consolidation broadcasters argue that the rise of online video streaming and ‘big tech’ constitute a market and technological change that requires removal of any limits on broadcaster consolidation in order for broadcasters to amass the necessary capital to remain in existence. As discussed by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) and other parties in filings in recent dockets, the reality of broadcasting today does not support this argument.”

“As stated by the LCCHR in the most recent Quadrennial Review docket, the pro-consolidation broadcasters ‘mistakenly characterize the availability of content distributed through the Internet as content created by online-only sources,’ ” the letter stressed. “Indeed, recent studies show that a majority of Americans still access news via TV news stations, and among those who get news from local TV stations, 37% say they mainly access that information online—whether from a TV station’s website, app, email newsletter or social media posts.

"While today there are indeed ‘online audio and video streaming services too numerous to quantity or recount,’ well-resourced entities that have the infrastructure to create local news content are far fewer," the letter continued. "An increasing number of ‘YouTube stars’ and ‘social media platforms’ does not change the reality that, as Nexstar itself states in its comment, local broadcasters ‘provid[e] communities with often the only reliable local news, sports, weather and emergency information.’ ”

The letter continued: “The suggestion that a flood of “content creators” online is a technological change which requires that local news must be able to consolidate without limit or face extinction is a red herring not borne out by the reality of Americans’ news consumption habits, as stated above, or by the reality of the industry’s profitability. For example, Nexstar is the nation’s largest owner of local broadcast television stations and currently reaches 70% of American households.8 In the fourth quarter of 2024, Nexstar reported a record net revenue of $1.49 billion and returned $820 million to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. 2024 was the twelfth year in a row in which the company increased its dividend.”

The letter also argues that “broadcasters’ arguments rephrase under the window-dressing of streaming video a decades-old goal of increasing consolidation and profitability, and fail to address the need for further regulation of ‘big tech’ and streaming video.”

The FCC lacks the authority to change the ownership caps, the letter argues, because “Congress did not intend that the Commission would be able to change the national cap.”

“In any event, as stated above, maintaining the national cap is in the interest of the public and consumers, and continues to serve the goals of localism in our nation’s news ecosystem,” the letter adds. “Permitting further consolidation will increase the likelihood that journalism and news are created in centralized offices, removed from the local communities a broadcast licensee serves.”

The full letter can be found here.

WASHINGTON—The NAB has announced the launch of a major public affairs campaign that it hopes will convince the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to modernize local television and radio ownership regulations.

Modernizing ownership rules limiting the size of broadcast station groups has long been a major focus of the NAB’s public affairs and lobbying efforts.

The new campaign, which will include national advertising, outreach to lawmakers and a visit by more than 500 broadcasters to the nation’s capital, comes at a time when the industry is hoping that the current Trump administration and new leadership at the FCC will be more inclined to allow more industry consolidation.

The NAB has long contended that the current rules, which were written before the advent of mobile phones and the internet, stifle any ability for broadcasters to compete with Big Tech.

“This campaign underscores the urgent need to modernize outdated FCC ownership regulations that put the future of local TV and radio stations at risk,” said NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. “In today’s media environment, local broadcasters must have the ability to grow and compete with Big Tech platforms that operate without similar restrictions. As trusted sources of news and information, particularly during emergencies, local stations provide a vital service to their communities. Policymakers must act now to ensure broadcasters can continue serving the public effectively, before it’s too late.”

NAB’s campaign will launch with national advertising directed at policymakers in Washington, D.C., viewer and listener education, and resources that enable consumer outreach to lawmakers and key stakeholders, including the White House and Federal Communications Commission, the group reported.

Next week, more than 500 broadcasters will also be in the nation’s capital to advocate for ownership reform and other priorities facing local stations during NAB’s State Leadership Conference.

The FCC’s existing media ownership regulations were established decades ago, at a time when broadcasters primarily competed with one another.

The NAB contends that these outdated rules limit the growth of television and radio stations in local markets and create barriers that hinder broadcasters’ ability to compete and serve their communities. Today, broadcasters face intense competition from Big Tech platforms and streaming services like YouTube, Amazon and Spotify, that operate without similar oversight, the NAB noted.

Local television broadcast groups are restricted in reach by FCC regulation to under 39% of TV households nationwide, and are limited in the number of major network-affiliated stations they can own in a single local market. Broadcast radio owners can only offer a handful of stations to listeners in each market. Meanwhile, Big Tech platforms, pay-TV and streaming services face no such restrictions on audience reach, the NAB has long argued.

Modernizing these regulations would give local stations the flexibility to grow, innovate and better serve their communities, the NAB said, keeping the content Americans love – like local news and sports on free, local channels.

NAB’s campaign comes as the FCC reviews its media ownership rules under chairman Brendan Carr, who has previously called this a “break glass moment for America’s broadcasters,” and emphasized the need to “make it easier for broadcasters to attract the capital necessary for them to invest, compete and serve their local communities.”

The NAB's spot ad can be viewed here.

The print ad is available here.

For more information about NAB’s campaign and efforts to modernize FCC regulations, please visit nab.org/ModernizeTheRules.

WASHINGTON—If the FCC wants to enact the deregulation efforts it originally proposed in 2017, it will have to go to the Supreme Court as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied a full court rehearing of the three-judge panel decision that went against the FCC in September.

The Third Circuit did not go into detail about why it denied the commission’s appeal, simply writing in its one paragraph explanation that the majority of judges did not vote to rehear the case.

The deregulation efforts that were at the center of the hearing dealt with newspaper-broadcast and the radio-TV cross ownership rules; dual station ownership in markets with fewer than eight independent voices; the elimination of attribution of joint sales agreements as ownership; the creation of a diversity incubator program and other diversity mechanisms. Prometheus et al. was the group that challenged the FCC in court.

In its original decision, the Third Circuit vacated most of the order, but also sent back a few elements to the FCC to be reworked.

If the FCC wishes to pursue their case further, the next step would be filing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON—Multiple sources are reporting that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is working on a media ownership order that, according to one industry source, would allow newspaper-broadcast and radio-TV crossownership. Additional parts of the order could remove the prohibition on owning two of the top four-rated stations in a market and “tweak” the eight-voices test for allowing duopolies.

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