WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission's Office of Economics and Analytics is seeking comments on the state of competition in the communications market to assess the competitive landscape for voice, video, audio, and data services.

The agency seeks the comments on even numbered years as part of its statutory requirement to publish a “Communications Market Place Report” that will help the agency determine what laws, regulations and policies might be hindering competition and how those laws, regulations and policies might be improved.

In the past, broadcasters have filed papers with the regulator urging it to eliminate caps on broadcast stations and to eliminate regulations that have made it difficult for broadcasters to compete with tech giants and streaming platforms.

While the FCC has not altered ownership rules in decades, court decisions since the last report in 2024 have eliminated the prohibition on owning two top four stations in one market and the FCC recently waived ownership caps in the Nexstar/Tegna merger, though that approval is now being challenged in two different federal courts.

The FCC created the GN Docket No. 26-78 for filings. Comments are due May 21, 2026 and Reply Comments are due June 22, 2026.

The full Public Notice is available here.

WASHINGTON—While broadcasters have made the elimination of ownership caps a major policy priority for decades, a new report from OpenSecrets documents how those efforts went into overdrive in 2025, as the Federal Communications Commission signaled it might be willing to change the rules and station groups announced a number of major deals that would require regulatory changes.

In 2025, Nexstar Media Group spent $3.2 million lobbying the FCC in 2025, roughly 10 times more than it did every year from 2018 to 2023, when its lobbying activity remained steady, according to OpenSecrets.

Meanwhile, Sinclair Broadcast Group, the second largest station owner, last year spent $800,000, up from $770,000 in 2024 and about four times its 2023 federal lobbying total.

As previously reported, broadcasters have long argued that the current rules that limit the reach of station groups to no more than 39% of all TV homes in the U.S., put them at a severe competitive disadvantage to big tech companies and streaming services who have captured a large share of the TV ad and subscription market in the last 15 years. Our full coverage of that issue can be found here and here along with our FCC coverage here.

The issue has become even more important as Nexstar announced in 2025 a $6.2 billion deal to acquire Tegna, Sinclair began talks about acquiring E.W. Scripps and station groups like Scripps and Gray announced deals and station swaps that would require changes to the rules.

The study also noted that “to help sway the FCC, Congress and the White House, Nexstar hired lobbyist Jeff Miller, who served as finance chair on President Donald Trump’s second inaugural committee, at the start of 2025. Miller heads Miller Strategies, one of the firms that have benefited most from their close connection with the Trump administration. Nexstar paid the firm $510,000 over the course of the year, although most of its lobbying was handled by the company’s in-house team. Tegna reported its first year of lobbying in 2025, spending $550,000 exclusively on Miller Strategies. Combined, the lobbying firm raked in over a million dollars from just the potential Nexstar-Tegna merger.”

The report also highlights the ongoing debate over whether the FCC has authority to change the rules, as the NAB and broadcasters have argued, or whether it would require Congress to pass new legislation, as opponents of changes to the ownership caps have argued.

The full report is available here.

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, has announced that he will convene a full committee hearing titled “We Interrupt This Program: Media Ownership in the Digital Age” on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at 10:00 am EST that will examine the Federal Communications Commission’s current broadcast media ownership rules.

The hearing comes at a time when the FCC is considering whether to modify current ownership rules as part of its Quadrennial 2022 Review. FCC Chair Brendan Carr has indicated his willingness to modify the rules as a way of strengthening local broadcasters but the regulator has made no final decision.

Several broadcasters, most notably Nexstar have also announced major deals that would require changes in the ownership rules.

Cruz announced that witnesses will include Chris Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax, who has filed comments with the FCC arguing that current ownership caps should be retained and Curtis LeGeyt, president and CEO of the NAB, which has long argued that the rules need to be eliminated.

Cruz said that the hearing would pay particular attention to one rule limiting a single broadcaster from reaching beyond 39 percent of U.S. television households nationwide in light of today’s evolving media landscape.

“The media market is changing rapidly, leading many to wonder if broadcast media ownership rules should reflect this new reality,” Cruz said in a statement. “This hearing is an important opportunity to discuss whether existing rules are legally sound, antiquated, or need to be updated to promote competition and protect against corporate censorship against conservatives.”

In announcing the hearing, the Committee noted that “as more Americans consume video content through streaming services and social media, the original intent of media ownership rules—to promote competition and diversity by limiting the number of media outlets a single entity may own—warrants review. Some telecommunications experts contend, however, that the current 39 percent cap is statutory, meaning it can only be changed by an act of Congress and not through regulation. Other critics worry possible changes to media ownership rules will result in fewer conservative voices on broadcast television.”

Opponents of changing the rules have argued that the FCC lacks the authority to eliminate the caps while the NAB and other larger broadcast groups have argued the agency has the power to eliminate them.

WASHINGTON—The NAB has released a new nationwide survey of registered voters that finds broad public support for eliminating the national broadcast ownership cap, a restriction that limits how many households a local TV station owner can reach across the country.

In announcing the survey, which was commissioned by the NAB and conducted by Fabrizio Ward, the NAB said the findings show that voters think the cap is unfair and they want government to give local stations a fair chance to compete for advertising and audience against Big Tech platforms, which face no such restrictions.

The survey comes at a time when the Federal Communications Commission is reviewing the ownership caps and broadcasters have announced a number of deals for stations that would require the current rules to be relaxed or eliminated.

“Voters are sending a clear message: the government should not impose arbitrary limits on trusted local broadcasters while Big Tech platforms face no such restrictions,” said NAB president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. “Ending the arbitrary national ownership cap - which applies to no other form of media - is about fairness and competition, but it’s also about ensuring local stations have the scale they need to invest in strong local journalism, emergency information and service to their communities.”

Bob Ward of Fabrizio Ward added: “These results show broad agreement that local stations should be allowed to compete nationally for advertising. Voters see this as a fairness issue, and they respond to where elected officials stand.”

The NAB described the key findings include:

• Voters see the national ownership cap as unfair by a 38-point margin: 58% of voters say the 39% ownership restriction is unfair, including 33% who say it is very unfair, while just 20% say it is unfair.
• Voters want local broadcasters to compete nationally for advertising by a 42-point margin: 57% say local TV station owners should be able to compete nationally against cable networks and internet streamers rather than the 15% that say they should remain restricted.
• There are clear political consequences for lawmakers: by a margin of 23-points, voters say they are more likely (36%) rather than less likely (13%) to vote for a member of Congress who supports allowing local station owners to compete nationally for advertising. Conversely, by a 24-point margin voters say they are less likely (36%) rather than more likely (12%) to vote for a member of Congress who opposes reform.
• Voters favor a level playing field with Big Tech by a 43-point margin: 52% say government policies should make it easier for local TV stations to compete for advertisers against Big Tech while just 9% think government should make it harder.
• Local TV remains a trusted source of news: 55% of voters express trust in local TV newscasts.

The survey results are available here.

A new poll commissioned by the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) and Defend the Press Campaign found that large majorities of likely voters in the upcoming mid-term elections opposed “large national broadcasters buying up or merging with local TV stations.”

Overall, 72% of the respondents opposed the idea, including 75% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans. Only 7% were in favor of the acquisitions and 21% were not sure.

“The bottom line is that Americans across the political spectrum don’t want local TV station consolidation,” said Brenda Victoria Castillo, president & CEO, NHMC, which is opposed to the FCC loosening or lifting current ownership caps on station groups. “They expect it to drive up their prices and give billionaires more power over what they see and hear, not to mention degrading the quality of coverage in their communities.”

The survey also found that 81% said they preferred local TV stations to be locally owned as opposed to being owned by “large national broadcast corporations.” Only 2% said they preferred local stations to be owned by the national broadcast corporations.

In addition, 80% of respondents opposed loosening legal restrictions that would allow large corporations to buy more local stations, with 89% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans opposing changes to the rules.

While local TV stations bill themselves as local media, the survey did not address the fact that most commercial broadcast stations are already owned by large station groups like Nexstar, Sinclair, Tegna, E.W. Scripps, Paramount, NBCUniversal, Disney and Fox. The NAB and many station groups have long argued that lifting the ownership caps would help them better compete against big tech companies that dominate the ad business.

The National Hispanic Media Coalition has in the past opposed further consolidation of the local TV station sector and has argued that the FCC should not raise current ownership caps.

The poll also found that large majorities of likely voters (76%) believed that corporate mergers would lead to higher prices for consumers.

The two groups said the survey—conducted by Lake Research Partners via live phones and text-to-online among 1,000 likely 2026 midterm voters nationwide—is among the first to measure public attitudes toward local TV station consolidation in the context of affordability, cost-of-living pressures, and growing attempts by billionaires to seize control of their local news.

The full poll results and the questions that voters were asked can be found here.

WASHINGTON—The National Association of Broadcasters has once again filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to abolish ownership rules governing TV and radio station.

The NAB made the comments in a filing for the FCC’s 2022 Quadrennial Review of ownership rules. Congress requires the agency to review those rules every four years, a process that has been delayed in recent years by court rulings.

In a detailed 128-page brief filed on Dec. 17 the NAB stressed that “when the Commission first adopted rules prohibiting common ownership of AM, FM, or television stations serving substantially the same area, Franklin D. Roosevelt occupied the White House. Now in the third decade of the 21st century, FCC rules still restrict local common ownership of AM and FM stations separately by service and in total and prevent ownership of more than two TV stations in all local markets. Even beyond the vast changes this century in the media marketplace – both audio and video and the two combined – the FCC has no justification to keep ex ante local ownership rules when its license transfer review process is far better suited to evaluating the public interest benefits of proposed transactions. In this 2022 quadrennial review, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) accordingly urges the FCC to expeditiously eliminate all of its ex ante local broadcast ownership rules.”

FCC Chair Brendan Carr has repeatedly indicated that he would like to liberalize those rules as part of a larger policy of helping local broadcasters. Some of those rules, notably the prohibition of owning more than one top four TV station in a market, have already been struck down by Federal court rulings.

On the same day that the NAB filed its brief in the 2022 Quadrennial Review process, president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt also praised comments by FCC Chair Brendan Carr during a Dec. 17 Senate Commerce Committee oversight hearing.

“Today’s hearing underscored what local broadcasters have been saying for years: the rules governing television and radio ownership are badly outdated and no longer reflect the competitive realities of today’s media marketplace,” LeGeyt said. "Local stations are competing every day against unregulated global tech and streaming giants that face none of the constraints imposed on broadcasters. That imbalance makes it harder for stations to invest in local journalism, weather coverage, emergency information and the live sports programming that communities rely on.

"We appreciate Chairman Carr’s willingness to confront these issues head-on and his recognition that policymakers have the power to modernize the rules before more local voices are lost,” he added. “NAB looks forward to working with Chairman Carr to strengthen local broadcasting, preserve competition and ensure communities continue to have access to trusted, local news and information.”

The full NAB filing can be found here.

In a social media post on Nov. 23, President Donald Trump linked to a Newsmax article that said lifting FCC station ownership caps would be a “disaster for conservatives.” Trump also complained that if proposals to lift the cap “would allow the Radical Left Networks to ‘enlarge,’ I would not be happy…If anything make them SMALLER!”

The attachment of the Newsmax story indicated that the post clearly backed positions taken by Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy in articles and filings with the Federal Communications Commission that oppose lifting the ownership caps. One America News, another staunchly pro-Trump cable network, has also come out against ownership deregulation.

It’s unclear, though, if Trump’s post will have any impact on the FCC’s ongoing reexamination of ownership caps. Regulations currently limit the audience reach of a single TV station group to no more than 39% of total U.S. television viewership.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr has repeatedly signaled his willingness to lift at least some of the ownership caps as a way to strengthen local broadcasters. He phrases his support as a means of limiting the power of national networks, which he says are biased, and strengthening local affiliates.

As part of that effort, the FCC recently launched a widespread probe into broadcast network-affiliate relations.

But Carr has gone out of his way to support and praise Trump in ways not seen for many decades at the supposedly independent regulatory agency. He has also been criticized by former FCC chairs and commissioners for investigating network affiliates who have provided critical coverage of President Trump or shows, such as “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” that Trump wants to see taken off the air.

The impact of the post is also difficult to interpret because Trump has repeatedly issued statements that either confuse the authority of the FCC or simplify regulatory issues in ways that are misleading.

Trump, for example, has repeatedly called on the FCC to yank the licenses for broadcast networks even though the FCC does not license broadcast networks like ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox.

The FCC does have licensing authority over all broadcast stations, including network affiliates that carry network news and programming. Attempts to regulate the content of those newscasts are, however, highly controversial.

In addition the station groups owned by major companies like Disney, NBCUniversal and Fox are not close to the ownership limits and would not be immediately impacted by raising or dropping the 39% cap.

Currently the Fox station group is the largest in terms of the way the FCC measures coverage at 26%, followed by CBS (owned by Paramount) at 24%. Both ABC (Disney) and NBC (Comcast) have about 20%, according to BIA Advisory Services data posted by TVNewsCheck.

Failure to lift the caps could have an important impact on pending deals by several station groups, most notably Nexstar Media Group’s acquisition of Tegna, which would give it about 54% coverage.

In response to Trump's post, Nexstar issued a statement. “We continue to believe that the landscape is ripe for regulatory reform and that we are on the path to completing our transaction,“ the station group said. “We agree with President Trump that the status quo is no longer acceptable, nor should the government do anything to strengthen the stranglehold of legacy media and Big Tech on the marketplace of ideas. Those platforms already reach into every pocket, purse, and backpack in America, and the best way to disrupt their monopolistic power is to allow local broadcasters an opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

“Americans want more access to local news and a variety of voices without the filter of the coastal elites,” Nexstar continued. “By modernizing the FCC’s rules, regulators will ensure that local communities benefit from an array of fact-based local journalism—the anti-fake news—for years to come. This is an historic opportunity to change the status quo and deliver a win for Americans across the country who are weary of legacy media’s leverage over local broadcasters.”

TYSONS, Va.—Tegna has announced that its shareholders have voted overwhelmingly to approve the proposed $6.2 billion merger with Nexstar Media Group.

In August, the station groups entered into a definitive agreement for Nexstar to buy Tegna for about $6.2 billion. The deal would create a behemoth in the local broadcasting industry with 265 full-power television stations in 44 states and the District of Columbia, with stations in 132 of the country’s 210 television DMAs.

The Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated Aug. 18, was approved by holders of 98% of Tegna’s common stock who voted at a Nov. 18 special meeting, Tegna said.

The Federal Communications Commission still must approve the deal, which will require it to relax existing ownership caps.

The deal is expected to close by the second half of next year, Tegna said, subject to regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. Upon closing, Tegna will become a subsidiary of Nexstar Media Group and its shares will no longer be traded on the New York Stock Exchange, the company said.

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—Among the 233 filings received by the Federal Communications Commission responding to the agency's request for public comments on ownership rules governing broadcast station groups, a large number of filings from unions, consumer groups, civil rights groups, church groups, liberal organizations, free speech advocates and others have come out strongly opposed to any change to the current 39% ownership cap.

Those organizations reject arguments by broadcasters that eliminating the ownership rules will strengthen their ability to compete with big tech and improve local journalism. They contend that further consolidation will harm smaller broadcasters and in general hurt, not improve local journalism.

These filings, which raise a host of other issues, also generally argue that the Congress, not the FCC, is the only government body that can change or eliminate local ownership rules.

Such arguments do not seem to have an inside track at the Republican-majority agency, where FCC Chair Brendan Carr has repeatedly indicated his willingness to change the rules as a way of strengthening local broadcasters and dismissed DEI efforts that are backed by civil rights groups.

But the arguments indicate both widespread opposition to ownership rule changes in some quarters and highlight issues that are sure to be raised in lawsuits should the FCC decide to eliminate ownership caps. Those lawsuits could drag on for a considerable amount of time, which in turn would imperil or delay a number of deals that have been announced by station groups.

Unions: Consolidation will Hurt Employment, Wages

Filings by the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America (NABET-CWA) bluntly argued that in assessing the competitive position of broadcasters “the Commission cannot ignore a key and incontrovertible fact: these companies continue to report considerable profits. If the broadcast industry actually faced an existential threat – or, as they describe, a `break glass moment’ where without `immediate regulatory relief” they will “cease to exist’ – the best evidence would be the industry’s financial performance. The broadcast companies are unable to produce this evidence because it does not exist. To ignore the fact that the industry reports record profits and healthy financial returns would be arbitrary and unreasonable.”

“Second, industry effectively asks the Commission to equate companies’ bottom lines with the regulatory goal of localism, which is both an absurd reading and demonstrably inaccurate,” the union continued. “To assume increased broadcaster profits will serve the public interest defies history and the facts in the record. Consolidation so far has only harmed localism, news, and workers – in direct contrast with the requirements of the Communications Act. We don’t have to guess what happens with increased consolidation because history and the record have already shown us: a reduced variety of news content, severe cuts to staff, declining newsroom capacity, and enormous harm to local news. To accept the broadcast industry’s argument means the Commission would be abandoning its legal obligation to hold broadcast licensees to their obligation to serve localism and the public interest, a cornerstone of broadcast regulation as old as the 1934 Communications Act.”

“Finally, the record confirms that, legally, the Commission cannot change the 39 percent cap and must properly implement it by repealing the UHF discount,” the filing concluded.

In its initial filing with the FCC, the NABET-CWA also attached a study blasting Nexstar for paying low wages that was based on a survey of workers and an analysis of labor market data in the first half of 2025.

“Respondents reported poverty wages and widespread worry about meeting basic financial obligations like housing, medical care, and groceries,” the study concluded.

In addition, it found that the majority (62%) of Nexstar workers earn less than a living wage for their metro area for a single person without children and 89% earn less than a living wage for their metro area for a single person with one child.

That forced “a majority (63%) of workers rely on family, friends or public assistance to get by. A majority of survey respondents feel financially insecure: 87% worried about meeting financial obligations sometimes (57%) or often (30%). The majority of survey respondents report delaying necessary medical care (55%) and buying groceries (53%) among their struggles to get by on Nexstar’s low wages,” the researchers noted.

The study also concluded that “The wages reported by workers indicate that Nexstar pays well below its peers in the industry. Nexstar pays 22% less than the median wage, on average, for the most common occupations surveyed. Workers also report that they have to skip breaks and often work in understaffed departments.”

“Nexstar’s ability to depress wages and lower standards is due largely to its behemoth status in an already highly consolidated industry,” the union-backed study argued. “If broadcasters are able to merge without limit, we will see low wages, poor work conditions, and further degradation of an already declining local news ecosystem.”

Broadcasters: Consolidation will Preserve Jobs

As previously reported, filings by the NAB, Nexstar and other broadcasters have strongly pushed back on those arguments.

“Commenters also claim that eliminating the national cap will somehow lead to a decline in employment, lower wages and benefits, and decreased job security,” a joint filing by the NAB, Nexstar and other broadcasters said. “But regulating the labor market is not one of the FCC’s functions under the Act. As a matter of logic, moreover, this argument misses the mark. They claim that broadcast TV station groups are not increasing their staffing levels, and yet, somehow, they believe that by preserving the status quo and stopping stations from growing nationally, the number of reporters employed in newsrooms would somehow magically increase or even stay the same…In fact, the one sure way to guarantee that newsroom employment decreases is by continuing to place broadcast TV stations at a competitive disadvantage such that stations are less profitable, unprofitable, or even insolvent. The fate of the newspaper industry is highly instructive here.”

More specifically, the filing by broadcasters argued that “NABET-CWA also claims consolidation of economic power will harm workers. But this argument rests on a flawed premise. Eliminating the national cap merely will allow broadcast station groups to extend their reach into other markets where they do not currently operate. In such a case, they will be competing for workers in an entirely new geographic area. As explained earlier, eliminating the national cap will facilitate expansion – not consolidation. And expansion to national scale will, for myriad reasons set forth in the record here, redound to the benefit of TV broadcasters and, more importantly, to viewers of free over-the-air television services throughout the country.”

The joint filing by broadcasters did not address the fact that in the press release for the proposed Nexstar acquisition of Tegna, Nexstar reported that “[b]ased on our estimates for 2025, Nexstar expects to generate annual net synergies of approximately $300 million from a combination of revenue synergies and net operating expense reductions.”

Civil Rights Groups: Consolidation with Hurt Diversity, Small Broadcasters

A number of groups representing Hispanic, Asian, African American consumers, broadcasters and journalists have also voiced their opposition to the elimination of ownership caps.

In addition to arguing that the FCC does not have the authority to lift caps set by Congress, those groups argue that the creation of gigantic broadcast station groups will harm the competitive position of smaller broadcasters, which in turn will reduce diversity in media ownership.

For example, a filing by United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, the Hispanic Federation, Japanese American Citizens League, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition argued: “Not only is the Commission prohibited from changing the National TV Audience Cap, but relaxing media ownership limits will also further exacerbate already-low competition, localism, viewpoint diversity and ownership diversity and will harm workers.”

The filing also warned that the FCC’s current policy of regulating employment decisions by refusing to approve mergers would mean that more media companies would abandon their DEI efforts. FCC action has already forced Verizon, Paramount and others to promise to end DEI programs.

“Media diversity has long been a top priority of the civil rights community because we understand that meaningful protection of civil rights relies in great measure on an accurate, independent, and diverse media that serves the constituencies we represent,” the groups stressed. “Ownership caps prevent individual companies from dominating national or local markets. A wider number of owners means it is more likely that a woman or person of color, or a member of any other underrepresented group, can purchase a station.”

In a separate filing, the Hispanic Federation, which is a nonprofit membership and advocacy organization with a network of over 850 organizations across the country, concluded “that the 39% broadcasting consolidation cap must be maintained in light of the vital role that broadcasting plays in local communities – particularly Latino communities – as well as the broadcasting spectrum’s unique status as a national resource.”

“While we remain committed to the goal of achieving regulatory parity between digital and traditional broadcast media, expanded conversations and research highlight the current proposal is more likely to harm consumers than achieve a competitive telecommunications landscape,” the group concluded. “As such, in keeping with our longstanding history serving disadvantaged communities across the United States, Hispanic Federation felt it prudent to outline our objections to the Rule. While the above comment effectively highlights ongoing challenges in the modern media landscape, we believe that its recommendations insufficiently capture the vital, even unique place of traditional broadcast media in vulnerable communities, that in turn warrants commensurately distinct protections from consolidating marketplace forces. As such, Hispanic Federation urges the FCC to convene a negotiated rulemaking committee to be comprised of leading scholars, industry groups, and representatives of communities vulnerable to disruptions in broadcasting market conditions to secure a productive, just, and competitive broadcasting regulatory environment.”

Many more filing by individuals and groups opposing consolidation and the elimination of ownership caps can be found here.

[Editor's note: This article is part of an ongoing series of articles on the FCC's ownership rules. We plan to publish on August 29 a separate article detailing some of the arguments against lifting the ownership cap that are being made by pay TV companies and organizations backed by pay TV operations, broadband providers and telcos.]

WASHINGTON—A broad coalition of broadcasters and the National Association of Broadcasters have filed reply comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) calling for the repeal of its national television ownership rule, which the filing said “unfairly prevents broadcasters from reaching more than 39% of the total number of TV households in the country.”

“This filing reflects an extraordinary level of consensus across America’s broadcasters,” said NAB president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. “The message is clear: it is time to eliminate the outdated national TV ownership cap. Broadcasters are united in calling on the FCC to level the playing field and give local stations a fair shot to compete, invest in journalism and continue providing our communities with trusted news and public safety information. The record leaves no doubt that the public interest is best served by empowering broadcasters, not restraining them.”

The filing was made by the National Association of Broadcasters, ABC Owned Television Stations, ABC Television Affiliates Association, CBS News and Stations, CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, Entravision, E.W. Scripps Co., FBC Television Affiliates Association, Fox Television Stations, LLC, NBC Television Affiliates, Nexstar Media Inc., Sinclair Inc., and Trinity Broadcasting Network.

In the filing the broadcasters “strongly urge the Commission to eliminate the national television ownership cap for all TV broadcasters. The Joint Broadcasters have joined together for these reply comments because each association and company believe strongly that, in a marketplace dominated by the likes of Google/YouTube, Amazon, Meta, and Netflix, no justification exists for broadcasters – and only broadcasters – to remain subject to this antiquated and harmful restriction.”

The filing also addressed worries that comments by FCC Chair Brendan Carr attacking the broadcast networks for political bias, might lead the agency to establish a two tiered ownership system, with ongoing limits for stations owned by broadcast networks.

“As the Commission considers next steps, the agency must continue to apply any national audience reach cap equally to all station owners, whether the stations are network-owned, network-affiliated, or independent,” the filing said. “All stations meaningfully contribute to the Commission’s localism goals by producing and distributing important local news, local public affairs, and other locally oriented programming for the communities they serve and compete in the broader video media marketplace. The Joint Broadcasters also note the legal complexity of not applying the cap (or lifting it) uniformly and believe the Commission should instead be focused on completing this long-standing rulemaking expeditiously by eliminating the cap universally.”

The filing also reiterates arguments that broadcasters have made against those who claim the FCC lacks the authority to change the rules; complaints by unions and consumer groups that consolidation would hurt localism, not advance it; and a variety of arguments by pay TV groups saying consumers would be harmed consolidated station groups who could demand much higher retransmission fees.

“Now in its ninth decade of artificially limiting the audiences of all television broadcasters and unchanged since 2004, the national ownership cap unfairly prevents broadcasters but none of our myriad competitors from reaching more than 39 percent of the total number of TV households in the country,” the filing noted. “This restriction skews the media and advertising markets in favor of digital advertising behemoths, increasingly consolidated pay TV/broadband providers, and unregulated global streaming platforms, at the expense of the only video service offering increasingly rare local journalism, emergency information, and popular entertainment and sports programming to communities across the nation at no cost to the public. The extensive record here, begun in 2017 and refreshed this year, reveals no basis for retaining the outdated national TV cap.”

The full filing can be found here.

WASHINGTON—As part of an ongoing push to get the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules that would strengthen local broadcasters and speed the transition to ATSC 3.0, Sinclair CEO Chris Ripley met this week with the agency’s Chair Brandan Carr, his chief of staff Greg Watson, and his senior counsel, Erin Boone, to discuss “the national television multiple ownership rule, as well as the National Association of Broadcasters’ petition for rulemaking asking the Commission to set a sunset date for ATSC 1.0 transmissions,” according to letter sent by Sinclair to the FCC.

In August 20 letter describing the August 19 meeting, Patrick McFadden, senior vice president, global public policy and communications at Sinclair, who also attended the meeting, noted they had reiterated their arguments for eliminating ownership caps in ways that “was consistent with our comments submitted in that proceeding.”

“With respect to the sunset of ATSC 1.0 transmissions, we discussed the emerging device market for ATSC 3.0 compatible receivers and consumers’ ability to purchase devices that allow them to continue to receive over-the-air signals after an ATSC 1.0 sunset,” McFadden wrote. “We emphasized the importance of the Commission continuing to move expeditiously in consideration of NAB’s petition for the benefit of consumers as well as broadcasters themselves.”

During the meeting, Sinclair executives also stressed that “the best way to spur the availability of more consumer devices is to provide certainty regarding a sunset. Further, as Sinclair noted in its comments in this proceeding, broadcasters are facing rapidly increasing competition from new platforms. ATSC 3.0 is a game-changing opportunity for broadcasters to diversify their revenue streams and ensure that they can continue to serve their viewers – but time is of the essence. We urge the Commission to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding promptly, which will then allow the Commission to develop a fulsome record that will support the sunset of ATSC 1.0 signals in the top 55 markets in February 2028, and the remaining markets in February 2030.”

The full letter is available here.

The Federal Communications Commission has emerged as one of the central players in the broadcast TV landscape in 2025, with its deregulatory policies sparking hope that ownership caps might be eliminated or relaxed and concern that its new focus on DEI and the content of broadcast newscasts might spark onerous regulatory requirements.

Hot topics in our most popular regulatory stories in the first half of this year included NextGenTV, deregulation, relaxing ownership caps, DEI, First Amendment issues, 5G broadcast and FCC attempts to regulate the content of broadcast newscasts.

Here is the full list of 20 stories, ranked by page views:

1. U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules
2. CTA Tells FCC: Don't Mandate ATSC 3.0 Tuners
3. Group Files FCC Complaint Against ABC, NBC and CBS for ‘News Distortion’
4. NAB Petitions FCC for ATSC 1.0 Sunset in 2028 and 2030
5. FCC’s Carr Calls Station Ownership Caps ‘Arcane’ and ‘Artificial‘
6. FCC Issues Report and Order Requiring Blackout Reporting
7. FCC Chair Carr Opens Investigation of DEI Efforts at Comcast, NBCU
8. FCC Chairman Carr Launches Massive Deregulation Initiative
9. FCC’s Simington Blasts Broadcast Networks as a ‘Corrupt Media Cartel’
10. FCC Seeks Public Comments on Changing Broadcast Ownership Rules
11. FCC OKs Verizon-Frontier Merger After Telco Backs Down on DEI
12. NAB Urges FCC to “Completely Repeal” Broadcast TV Ownership Restrictions
13. Chair Carr Blasts Comcast Over MSNBC Coverage
14. FCC’s Gomez: Trump Administration Is Waging an "Aggressive Campaign" to “Bring Broadcasters...to Heel”
15. FCC Departures Could Delay Deregulation Efforts
16. Broadcasters Urge FCC to Hit the Delete Button on Antiquated Regs
17. Sinclair Urges FCC to Abolish Station Ownership Rules, Sunset ATSC 1.0
18. Simington Backs Idea That FCC Should Regulate YouTube TV, vMVPDs like Cable
19. FAA Grants Sinclair Permission To Fly Newsgathering Drones Over People, Vehicles
20. FCC Seeks Comments on LPTV Adoption of 5G Broadcasting

The Federal Register has published a summary of the Federal Communications Commission’s Public Notice seeking comments on its ownership rules that lists a due date of Aug. 4 and a reply deadline of Aug. 22.

As previously reported, the Public Notice seeks comments on a wide range of issues relating to the FCC’s various ownership rules.

Some commentators have seen the relatively tight comment window as another indication that FCC Chair Brendan Carr seeks to move relatively quickly in relaxing at least some of the rules. Carr has been increasingly vocal in his criticism of the rules.

In the public notice, the Media Bureau reopened comments on a 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking on national ownership caps that limits station groups from owning or controlling broadcast television stations that reach more than 39% of all U.S. television households. The National Cap NPRM also sought comment on a component of the rule that provides a 50% discount to UHF stations for purposes of calculating compliance with the 39% audience-reach cap, often referred to as the “UHF discount.”

“With this Public Notice,” the Media Bureau wrote, “we open a new comment window and encourage the submission of new or additional information to refresh the record in the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule proceeding.”

More specifically, the FCC said it is seeking comment on “materials filed since the comment period ended in April 2018. We invite commenters to review these materials and comment on whether they highlight any issues that warrant further comment and consideration. Are there issues raised in the National Cap NPRM for which new and relevant information has come to light? How have the positions of commenters in this proceeding changed over time as a result of new information? To what extent is prior information in the record outdated or superseded by more recent developments? Where possible, commenters should explain how any new analysis, evidence, or proposals relate to the Commission’s promotion of the public interest.

“Second, we seek comment on new or additional information regarding the television and video programming marketplace that is relevant to this proceeding,“ the FCC continued. “Are there changes in the video programming marketplace that would affect the Commission’s prior conclusions about the national audience reach cap? For example, in the National Cap NPRM, the Commission noted, among other developments, the growth of video programming options available to consumers (including online alternatives to traditional video distribution), reverse compensation fees paid by affiliates to broadcast networks, common ownership of broadcast and cable networks, consolidation among both MVPDs and non-network owned broadcast television station groups, and continuing MVPD video subscriber losses.”

In addition, the Public Notice asked if there are “any developments relevant to the relationship between national broadcast networks and their local affiliate television station groups? Have recent industry developments altered the incentives or behavior of networks, local television affiliates, and other market participants in ways relevant to the national audience reach cap? In the National Cap NPRM, the Commission discussed economies of scale made possible by expansion of station ownership that may help broadcast television remain competitive in the marketplace and deter the migration of expensive over-the-air programming to other video programming distributors.”

The notice also asked for comments on the UHF rule and the idea that the national ownership cap would preserve a balance between the networks and their local affiliates, encouraging local programming.

“The Commission noted its prior conclusions, dating back to 2003, that a national cap would promote localism by enabling local affiliates to influence programming decisions by the networks and to exercise their rights to preempt the airing of network programming in favor of programming better suited to their local communities’ needs,” the public notice explained. “Do these prior conclusions remain accurate in 2025, and can they be expected to remain valid going forward? If so, and the Commission retains a national audience reach cap, should common ownership of stations that are not affiliated with major national broadcast networks (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox) be excluded from the cap? Id. at 10793, para. 18 (seeking comment on whether the national audience reach cap should apply equally to all station ownership groups).”

All filings must be submitted in MB Docket No. 17-318, the notice in the Federal Register said. “Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),” the notice stated.

The full Public Notice is available here.

WASHINGTON—In a press conference following the Federal Communications Commission’s May Open Meeting, Chair Brendan Carr promised the agency would move rapidly in a number of areas over the summer now that it has a quorum of Commissioners with the swearing in of Republican Olivia Trusty.

“I think we have a very, very busy, productive July and August in terms of a number of items that we've got teed up and ready to go,” Carr said.

During the press conference, Carr, also a Republican, reiterated that he wanted to boost local broadcasters by reexamining FCC’s ownership caps, said that the agency would act “soon” on his concerns over how EchoStar is using its spectrum, declined to provide a timeline when the agency would conclude its review of the Paramount Global-Skydance Media merger and once again argued that the FCC has the power to regulate news content from licensed broadcasters.

In response to a question that the FCC seemed to be moving towards lifting ownership caps for most broadcasters but retaining restrictions on stations owned and operated by national broadcast networks like ABC, CBS and NBC, Carr denied that was the case.

“Look at this point, we're very open-minded as to the outcome,” he said. “[A] whole range of options that could be possible. And if you sort of step back, one of the themes that I've tried to be pretty clear about, and maybe some people would think I’ve been too blunt about, is that I want to work to empower local broadcasters. I think if you again look at trust in media across the board, trust in…national programmers, particularly when it comes to ABC, CBS, NBC, trust in those outlets is at an all-time low. And so, separate from that, one thing I'm trying to do is continue to empower those local broadcasters to feel they can actually have the freedom to serve their local communities. So as we go forward in this proceeding, I'm open-ended, open-minded as to where we will ultimately end up. But again, one of the North Stars I've been looking at is empowering those local broadcasters.”

In addition to attacking the major broadcast networks, Carr also reiterated his view that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate content on cable networks like Fox News or OAN but that it does have the authority to regulate news content and news bias on broadcast stations.

“Congress has been very clear that the regulatory authority with respect to broadcasters is different than the regulatory authority with respect to cable,” he said. The difference is authority, he added, is based on the fact that “if they have access to a valuable public resource spectrum {and are given a license for] the 6 MHz of spectrum, we're necessarily denying other speakers the right to do that. Similarly, there's statutory benefits that you get from being a licensed broadcaster, including things that ultimately go to retransmission consent and whatnot….It's not my decision, it's Congress's decision that there's a very different regulatory structure. And again, the thing that's the subject of the regulation is different. What I'm talking about is making sure that broadcasters fulfill their public-interest obligation.”

Carr did not address the obvious issue of whether the FCC would have, under that philosophy, the authority to regulate content from cable networks like OAN or Fox News Channel that airs on broadcast stations.

Carr was also asked about an FCC’s investigation into Echostar that could result in the satellite provider losing wireless and satellite spectrum that Elon Musk’s Starlink and others would like to acquire.

In response, Carr declined to comment on a meeting that he attended with President Donald Trump and Echostar chairman Charlie Ergen. He did say, however, that “the status quo needs to change. There's lots of different paths forward there. And you know, all options are still on the table.”

He added that he expected the FCC to act “soon.”

In a press conference following Carr, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez explicitly rejected the idea that ownership caps should be removed and that the FCC has authority to regulate broadcast news content, which she called a clear violation of First Amendment rights.

“As you know, I launched my first amendment tour a few months ago to shine a light on the administration's campaign of censorship and control,” she said. “Since then, we've seen all kinds of actions aimed at silencing dissent and punishing critics. These aggressive tactics recently culminated in a U.S. senator being forcibly removed from a public event and thrown onto the ground simply for asking a government agency he oversees a question. This is what government censorship and control looks like today.”

In terms of ownership caps, Gomez complained: “Just hours before the national holiday, the FCC issued a notice that would begin the process to give billionaire-owned media conglomerates even more influence over what Americans see and hear. Most likely missed this last-minute release...and that's no accident, because we know, and they know, that this isn't about strengthening journalism or preserving local news. This FCC proposal to unleash a new era of unregulated media consolidation is only about helping the largest broadcast companies grow even larger at the expense of independent stations and the communities they serve. A media landscape dominated by a few national players will not deliver diverse local voices. Instead, it risks the loss of local jobs and local perspectives and the disappearance of independent, community-focused journalism.”

WASHINGTON—Twenty-two U.S. Senators have sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr urging him to “modernize” ownership caps that are limiting broadcasters' ability to compete in a media landscape increasingly dominated by large tech companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon.

The letter came during a week when FCC chair Carr provided his clearest signal yet that he wanted to deregulate ownership rules and broadcast executives talked openly during their Q1 earnings calls with Wall Street analysts about the lucrative merger and acquisition opportunities that deregulation might offer the industry.

The NAB applauded the letter, which was from 22 Republican Senators.

“The fast-evolving media marketplace has made broadcast ownership regulations in urgent need of modernization,” the letter said. “The fast-evolving media marketplace has made broadcast ownership regulations in urgent need of modernization. Such regulations originated in the 1940s, and while the FCC has made modest adjustments since then, broadcast ownership rules today remain nearly the same as they were in the 1990s. Despite modest tweaks, these rules fail to account for the rise of digital platforms, streaming services, smartphones, and social media. Local broadcasters now vie for audience, content, and advertising not just with each other, but with the world's largest tech companies.”

“By modernizing broadcast ownership restrictions, the FCC can empower broadcasters to fulfill their essential role in American democracy, foster local journalism, and benefit local communities and the public interest,” it concluded.

In response to the letter, NAB president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt said: “We are grateful to Sen. Jerry Moran and his colleagues for their leadership in urging the FCC to modernize decades-old broadcast ownership rules that impede local stations’ ability to invest in our newsrooms, innovate and serve our communities. Local broadcasters compete every day with trillion-dollar tech companies, yet we remain shackled by ownership restrictions that are premised on the outdated notion that broadcasters compete only with one another for audience and advertising. We urge Chairman Carr and the full Commission to act expeditiously to empower local stations to deliver the most-trusted news, emergency information and vital content Americans rely on.”

On May 2, FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington and his chief of staff, Gavin M. Wax, published an op-ed in The National Pulse arguing a 30% cap on reverse retransmission fees—the revenue that local TV stations pay back to their affiliated broadcast networks—as a necessary step to protect local journalism and rein in the networks and media monopolies, CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox. This is a much-needed addition to the ways the Federal Communications Commission could actually help local television survive.

When it comes to the FCC and its antiquated regulatory framework that stymies innovation and fair competition, I feel like the proverbial “voice crying in the wilderness.” As one of the very few African-American owners of television stations, I have repeatedly advocated that if the FCC truly wanted to ensure the television industry didn’t go the way of the newspaper industry and end in extinction, it had to do two critical things.

First, remove its Depression-era ownership limits hobbling the television industry by ending the artificial limits on station ownership in a market and the 39% national audience cap. That would finally level the marketplace, allowing television to be able to fairly compete against its Big Tech competitors—Google, X, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, TikTok, etc.—none of which are subject to the FCC’s ownership and regulatory restrictions.

Second, the FCC has to loosen its regulatory chokehold on the advanced television format ATSC 3.0. The FCC knows how to aid new technology that expands public availability and service. It did so for FM radio and UHF television by ensuring they were available on all new tuners manufactured. To aid the critical analog-to-digital conversion the FCC mandated a conversion requirement and created a reimbursement program to help the television industry cover the cost. It should do likewise for ATSC 3.0.

The proposal by Simington and Wax provides a much-needed third step in the FCC’s work to protect local broadcasting and journalism. By capping reverse retransmission fees the FCC would eliminate the unfair advantage networks have over local journalism and broadcasters. Section 303 of the Communications Act gives the FCC the authority to regulate the network and affiliate relationship, and reigning in the financial overreach of the national networks fully supports the FCC taking this action.

Capping reverse retransmission fees would also be very consumer-friendly. It would allow the affiliates to keep pricing stable for the MVPDs.

Whether through traditional cable/satellite or streaming platforms and MVPDs, the FCC must act decisively to level the playing field for local television—first against Big Tech when it comes to ownership and audience reach, and second against the networks when it comes to distribution control and revenue. Otherwise, local television and the local service it provides will die.

When the network media conglomerates abuse their market power and hoard retransmission revenues, local stations are forced to cut news staff and greatly curtail divergent and diverse content offerings. The loss of that diversity is antithetical to the public interest and feeds a downward spiral for the television industry. Under such circumstances, it is not only appropriate for the FCC to step in and act—it's neccessary.

Capping reverse retransmission fees, eliminating antiquated and unfair broadcast ownership rules and removing the artificial and harmful regulations standing in the way of the universal deployment of ATSC 3.0 are just what the doctor ordered. Without such straightforward solutions being taken by the FCC, broadcast television will, as Simington said last March, continue its “catastrophic decline.”

WASHINGTON—In a new letter to the Federal Communications Commission, the NAB is arguing that the agency should “completely repeal” ownership rules limiting the reach of broadcast station groups rather than simply liberalizing or modernizing the rules so that station groups can reach a larger percentage of U.S. homes.

“For more than two decades, the national TV rule has prohibited any entity from owning local commercial TV stations reaching, in the aggregate, more than 39 percent of the total number of TV households in the nation,” the letter said. “This outmoded rule prevents broadcasters – but not any other video service providers – from competing for audiences and vital advertising revenues across the country and harms the public’s free, over-the-air (OTA) television service. The time to eliminate this harmful restriction is now.”

In its arguments, the NAB hinted at the industry’s hopes that the current administration and FCC chair Brendan Carr will be more receptive to changing the ownership caps. The letter noted that in 2017, during the first Trump administration, the FCC sought comment on modifying or eliminating the national audience reach limit.

In response to that effort, which did not result in any changes, then-Commissioner Carr observed that the FCC has had “rules on the books” limiting TV station ownership since the 1940s, and that, due to accelerating advances in technology and the advent of new offerings, broadcasters “now compete for eyeballs with YouTube stars, social media platforms, and streaming services like Hulu and Netflix—not to mention traditional cable and satellite offerings.”

In 2017 the NAB had advocated for the FCC to “at least do no harm, and essentially preserve the status quo by either retaining the 39 percent cap and discounting all stations (not just UHF) at 50 percent of their reach, or in the alternative, if the Commission was intent on eliminating the discount, to raise the cap to 78 percent.”

In the new filing, the NAB goes much further. “[G]iven dramatic changes in the video and advertising markets since 2017, the…(NAB) now urges the Commission to expeditiously conclude this rulemaking and completely repeal the outdated and competitively harmful national broadcast TV ownership restriction.”

The “continued marketplace trends over the past seven years make clear there is simply no good reason to keep any artificial limits on TV station groups’ audience reach,” the filing bluntly stated. “With Google and Facebook gobbling up local advertising revenues and stations competing with unconstrained streaming platforms for viewers’ time and attention, the FCC must end this limitation and allow broadcasters to better serve the public interest. NAB’s Television Board – with members ranging from those owning a handful of stations to the largest local broadcasting companies in the country – supports without opposition the position of broadcasters, including Nexstar, Sinclair, Univision, and others, which have persuasively argued in the record that the national TV rule in any form does not promote, but instead harms, competition, diversity, and localism and should be eliminated entirely.”

Much of the filing lays out masses of data showing how the competitive landscape of the TV and media industries has been transformed since the last time the rules were altered in 2004 and reiterates familiar arguments that the ownership rules have limited the competitive position of broadcasters compared to less regulated tech giants like Google, Amazon and Facebook.

The letter also spends many pages laying out the legal authority for the FCC making changes to the ownership rules in an attempt to rebut some observers who have argued that only Congress can change the rules. “If the FCC has authority to modify its calculation of national audience reach by repealing the UHF discount, then it also would have authority to change the method of calculating national audience reach in other ways,” the filing argued.

The full April 2, 2025 filing can be found here.

During an earnings call with analysts where Nexstar Media Group reported massive revenue from political advertising, founder, chairman and CEO Perry Sook also told analysts that he sees opportunities for deregulation in the newly elected Trump administration and both the station group and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) will be pushing for those changes.

In June 2023, Sook was elected chairman of the joint board of directors of NAB.

Sook called deregulation, the No. 1 priority and named NextGen TV, aka ATSC 3.0, as the No. 2 priority.

“Obviously, the No. 1 legislative priority of Nexstar and our trade association, NAB, is the deregulation of ownership at both the national and the local level,” Sook said. “When you step back and look at it, our industry's real competition comes from big tech companies, who have unfettered access to every screen in America from phones, desktops to the TV in the living room, yet our ability to compete with those behemoths is stymied by regulations that were last updated in 2004.”

“To preserve local journalism, this industry needs strong companies, who can compete on a level playing field for both viewers and advertisers on every screen in America, not just some of them,” he continued. “And the time is now to seek this reform and Nexstar is once again prepared to lead. We’ve established our own government relations presence in D.C. to work with both the regulatory agencies and the new Congress. Ultimately … we see this as a bipartisan issue, appealing to Republicans due to its deregulatory nature and to Democrats as a consumer issue by preserving local news service in communities across the country.”

Sook also argued that deregulation would boost the value of broadcasters, noting: “I took the company public in 2003 at roughly a 12 times EBITDA multiple, due in part to the prospect of deregulation coming from the 108th Congress, which took office in January of 2004. My point being that progress on deregulation has been a catalyst for multiple expansion in the past. So we plan to move with a sense of urgency on this as well as push for the formal adoption of ATSC 3.0 as our industry's transmission standard. That is our and our trade association’s No. 2 priority with this new administration.”

During the Q3 earnings call, Sook also said that “with the election behind us, we have pretty clear visibility into the 2024 political advertising revenue picture. As of Election Day, we booked political advertising revenue of $491 million year-to-date, a record presidential election year so far versus the $479 million we booked through Election Day in 2020. Once again, local television received by far the largest amount of political spending, and it remains the medium of choice for candidates and interest groups to reach local voters at scale.”

WASHINGTON—Flourishing a "78%" cap, Nexstar Media Group Chairman/President/CEO Perry Sook escalated his call for the FCC move on raising the 39% cap (78% counting the 50% discount for UHFs) on a broadcast group's national ownership reach, and preferably doffing it altogether "as soon as possible."

The emblazoned black baseball cap simply marked "78%" rested on the rostrum throughout Sook's wide-ranging speech at the monthly Media Institute luncheon in Washington Tuesday (April 23) in which he also aggressively advocated for adoption of ATSC 3.0 services and discussed the Justice Department's recent escalation of antitrust examinations of the broadcast industry.

The National Association of Broadcasters has settled on an across-the-board 78% cap on UHF and VHF stations as the compromise position, but Sook suggested that the FCC should do at least that to preserve the status quo, and suggested broadcasters could use more in an era when online and other sources abound.

The Justice Department next week is holding a forum to look into what the relevant market for broadcast advertising is and whether online should be included in the mix.

Justice has been considering the issue in relation to a couple of recent merger reviews, specifically the aborted Sinclair-Tribune merger, and the follow-up Nexstar-Tribune merger.

It also struck settlements with a number of broadcasters—including Nexstar—stemming ad-related info exchanges, an investigation that grew out of those reviews. The issue of online competition was raised in those investigations leading to Justice's deeper dive into just how much online platforms compete with broadcasters for local ads.

Sook made it clear where he stands.

"[M]ost of our regulatory agencies treat television as if it is its own market, while in reality we compete against all of these other entities locally for share of eyeballs as well as share of the local market revenues," he said.

He pointed to Nexstar internal surveys that showed that 47% of local advertisers are buying ads on Facebook live today.

"We compete against all of these other entities locally for share of eyeballs as well as share of the local market revenues," he said, noting that the FCC plan "does not go far enough to protect the existence of local television and local journalism."

"It is in the national interest to foster and promote the local television industry and our local journalism and allow us to effectively compete against the unregulated behemoths that have unfettered access to 100% of the households in the U.S., not just 39% or even 78%," said Sook, who sits on the boards of CBS Affiliates and the National Association of Broadcasters.

Hammering edge providers has become a popular pastime in Washington these days and Sook was no exception given the regulatory pass that those edge providers get while broadcasters are expected to invest in providing important local news in service of the public interest, he suggested.

"When a woman committed suicide in a live stream on Facebook two years ago, the excuse was 'it was the weekend and we didn’t have staff,'" he said "We as local television broadcasters don’t get that pass, and neither should they."

Nexstar, which is nearing a $6.4 billion "transformative acquisition" of Tribune Media stations (as Sook described it), will become the largest U.S. group owner, even after spinning off some properties to meet federal regulations. Sook said that overall "consolidation has been a dirty word," and urged regulators to examine the deal flow "on a case-by-case basis."

Later, responding to a question about why the Justice Department is currently scrutinizing media mergers so closely, Sook first joked that his lawyers (several of whom were in the room) would advise him not to say anything.

Nonetheless, he surmised that the increasing number of transactions has caught regulators' attention, adding that media companies are cooperating in the "participatory" process to explain the shifting media landscape in which broadcasters represent a different role than they did in earlier days. He also noted that with the last four companies that Nexstar acquired, it sold ten television stations to minority buyers, "becoming the largest source of deal flow to minority TV owners" in the past decade.

Sook renewed his vow that, "if our industry is deregulated and our company can continue to grow, I again publicly commit to you that I will continue to create more opportunities for minority buyers as part of our future processes."

Big 3.0 Expectations

Sook extolled the virtues of ATSC 3.0, the next-gen broadcast transmission standard, citing the Internet Protocol technology as way for broadcasters to offer a hybrid "modernized viewing experience" embracing live over-the-air TV and streaming content.

"The advanced advertising features of 3.0 will enable broadcasters to offer advertisers new opportunities that we think will grow our ad revenues," he contended. Sook also envisioned "tremendous opportunity" in the long term for broadcasters to participate in connected and autonomous vehicles via traditional video content, navigational aids and other datacasting services.

He emphasized that Nexstar is one of the only groups that is participating in both the Pearl TV and Spectrum Consortium projects, noting that will enable his company to take part in upcoming tests in markets such as Phoenix, where its stations are allied with both those Next Gen TV groups. Sook acknowledged the challenges of an unsubsidized migration to 3.0, but cited that many stations are using their spectrum repack funding to upgrade to Next Gen technology.

Although he admitted that efforts to put a 3.0 receiver chipset into mobile handsets poses a near-term challenge, he expects that as soon as one handset maker ads that feature, other phones will follow.

Most enthusiastically, Sook concluded that the ATSC 3.0 represents a great unknown opportunity for broadcasters. "The highest use of that spectrum is something we haven't thought of yet," he said.

John Eggerton contributed this report

WASHINGTON--As expected the FCC on Dec. 12 will officially launch its latest congressionally mandated "Quadrennial" review of broadcast ownership rules.

FCC chair Ajit Pai did the unveiling Tuesday (Nov. 20) in his monthly blog post on the items the FCC plans to vote on at its next public meeting, which he does when the tentative agenda is released 21 days before the meeting.

"On the media front, we’ll be kicking off a review of our media ownership rules — a review we’re required by statute to conduct every four years," he said. "The 2018 Quadrennial Review, as it’s called, will begin with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which seeks public input on the relevant rules, such as the Local Radio Ownership Rule, as well as several diversity-related proposals."

Senior FCC officials speaking on background said the review would not include either the 39% cap on national audience reach or the UHF discount from that cap.

The reason is that they were not among the rules the Congress requires it to review. They said the cap and discount would continue to be reviewed on a parallel track.

The rules up for review in the Quad are the local radio ownership rules, local TV ownership limits and the dual-network rule. But they said it was an open-ended review with no tentative conclusions.

It will ask whether the rules should remain, be modified, or eliminated.

The FCC will also review a trio of diversity-related proposals--one is whether to extend the cable procurement EEO regs to broadcast, whether to identify a "tipping point" of source diversity in lieu of ownership rules and on tradeable diversity credits, all issues MMTC has raised.

Chairman Ajit Pai had told Congress that the review was coming by year's end, so it was no surprise that it was teed up for the meeting. The FCC has let the quadrennial deadline for concluding the review slip in the past for a variety of reasons--including having to repeatedly respond to court decisions on rule challenges--only wrapping up a combined 2010 and 2014 review in November of last year.

So the chairman is getting what could arguably be called an early start even though the lookback will clearly be primarily a 2019 review. A senior official said they did not want this review to drag on for years, but would not put a deadline on it.

Also at the meeting, the FCC will vote on a declaratory ruling that wireless text messages are information services, not telecom services, so that service providers can continue to protect their customers from span and scam robocalls, said senior FCC officials.

That ruling would deny petitions to declare text messages a telecom service. Texts had not previously been classified and the petitions gave the FCC a chance to weigh in.

The FCC says a text messaging service provides for storing and retrieving information, so it is like email. It also finds that text messaging, like wireless broadband service, is a commercial mobile service, not a private service, because it is not connected to the public-switched service.

WASHINGTON—Attorneys general from a handful of states have told the FCC it does not have the authority to raise the 39 percent national audience reach cap for TV station groups, that it does have the authority to eliminate the UHF discount, and that it should eliminate the discount.

That came in comments this week on the FCC's inquiry into whether it should raise, or lower, or retain the cap, and how that dovetails with the UHF discount that counts only half a UHF TV station's audience toward that cap.

The FCC under chairman Ajit Pai reinstated the cap, saying the previous commission should have considered the cap and the discount together, which it is now doing.

The AGs were from Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, California and Virginia. Initially the filing excluded California, but that was a mistake corrected in a follow-on filing.

They said they were weighing in on the issue because they are "he chief consumer protection and law enforcement officers in our respective states, we are responsible for promoting and defending the public interest," and that "raising the national audience each limit and/or maintaining the UHF discount fails to further the public interest."

[FCC Seeks Comment on National Reach Cap]

The AGs appear fairly convinced this deregulator FCC majority will wind up lifting the cap, if not doffing it altogether.

They argue that getting rid of the cap would threaten diversity, competition, and localism, and cites Sinclair Broadcasting, whose Tribune deal would benefit from lifting or eliminating the limit, pointing out that it distributes news stories that must run in its newscasts. They extrapolate that to local preferences being lost in other programming—sports, religious, science—if "as a result of excessive consolidation, a large owner requires all of its stations to show particular sporting contests, religious celebrations, or scientific perspectives."

A politically, and philosophically, divided FCC voted Dec. 14 to launch a review of the FCC's national 39 percent broadcast audience reach cap. (It was as busy meeting, also including the FCC's rollback of net neutrality regs).

TV station group owners cannot own stations that reach more than 39 percent of the national audience, with waivers in some circumstances.

The FCC is looking at whether it can modify the cap, which was created by Congress, and if so, whether it should be lowered or, more likely under this FCC, raised or eliminated altogether given the increasing programing and technological options for accessing content.

It also asks whether to retain the UHF discount, which allows station groups to count only half their UHF station audience toward that cap, and if not, should the cap be adjusted.

[Deregulation Picks Up Steam: New Media Rules Foreshadow a New Terrain for Broadcasters]

"We need to take a holistic look at the national cap rule, including the UHF discount," chairman Ajit Pai said of the review when it was approved in a 3-2 party line vote. "The marketplace has changed considerably due to the explosion of video programming options and various technological advances that have occurred since the cap was last considered in 2004. So we need to examine whether our rules should change accordingly. That’s an important discussion that will be informed by the facts in the record—not anything else."

The item drew no tentative conclusions. Chairman Pai said the item was all about developing a record and could not say when any action would be taken.

This article originally appeared on TVT's sister publication B&C.

BALTIMORE—While Sinclair signaled Wednesday (Feb. 21) that it will be divesting ownership in WPIX-TV New York and WGN-TV Chicago to get under the FCC's 39 percent ownership cap, it could still be keeping its hand in the number one and number three markets, respectively, where it does not currently own any stations.

Sinclair said it already has a purchase agreement for both stations and both those agreements include services agreements, in which Sinclair could provide some services to the new owner.

The amended deal filed with the FCC includes footnotes on the sales of both WGN and WPIX to the effect that: “The purchase agreement provides that upon closing of the sale of this station, Sinclair will enter into an option and master services agreement [the WGN footnote simply says 'services agreement' or 'agreements,' plural] with the buyer of this station [WPIX], copies of which will be filed as part of the assignment application for such station.”

[FCC IG Agreed to Investigate Pai Handling of Sinclair-Tribune]

One analyst talking on background said a sale of both stations to Cunningham, which already owns a bunch of stations with various management agreements with Sinclair, is a definite possibility.

The FCC as part of its media deregulation efforts scrapped the previous Democratic FCC's advisory on joint agreements, which warned that the FCC viewed them essentially as a way to skirt FCC ownership rules.

This story first appeared on TVT's sister publication B&C.