SACRAMENTO—Following a hearing in Federal Court on April 7 on whether Nexstar can continue go forward with its $6.2 billion deal to acquire Tegna, LightShed Partners financial analyst Richard Greenfield has issued a note to investors arguing that he expects California District Court Judge Troy Nunley to grant a preliminary injunction halting the deal and that the ruling could have a major impact on dealmaking in the broadcast station sector.

As previously reported, a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting the merger between Nexstar and Tegna was issued by U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley in California in the U.S. District Court Eastern District Of California. The ruling blocks the two companies from proceeding with integration of their operations until the court rules on whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction in an antitrust case filed by DirecTV that seeks to block the deal. The Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice had earlier approved the deal.

The court heard arguments from both sides during a hearing on April 7 that was attended by Nexstar chairman and CEO Perry Sook.

At the end of the hearing Judge Nunley indicated that he would release a full ruling by Friday, April 10. Following the hearing, several published accounts (available here, here and here) indicated Judge Nunley seemed likely to issue the preliminary injunction based on his reaction to the arguments.

“Given the harshness of Nunley’s March 28th Temporary Restraining Order (link), we believe the most likely outcome is a preliminary injunction barring further integration,” Greenfield wrote in a note to investors. “What will be most interesting is whether Nunley acknowledges the challenges highlighted by Nexstar in their response to the TRO or maintains the same strict `keep separate’ order for a transaction that has already closed.”

“If the Nexstar case goes to trial, the best case is likely a mid-to-late Q4 hearing, with a decision in early 2027 and an appeal process that could eat up most of 2027,” he added.

“Remember, with the broadcast ownership cap effectively waived by the FCC to clear a path for consolidation, the Nexstar/Tegna merger was expected to drive a wave of consolidation over the next couple of years, including Nexstar and its peers,” he concluded. “We suspect this litigation could chill near term M&A across the broadcast sector, reducing the odds of a near-term settlement.”

The deal also faces ongoing litigation from Newsmax Media and several pay TV groups who have filed a motion in United States Court Of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit seeking to halt the deal.

Other parties have filed papers with the Federal Communications Commission asking it to reconsider its approval of the $6.2 billion deal.

WASHINGTON—In response to the Federal Communications Commission’s request for comments on how the sports rights landscape and access to free televised sports might be improved, Sinclair has filed comments highlighting the importance of free access to major sporting events as a way to keep the country unified and detailed some policies that the agency could adopt if it wants to preserve sports on broadcast TV.

“Sports programming carried on broadcast television plays a vital role in fostering civic pride, cultural cohesion, and community engagement at both the local and national levels,” Sinclair’s filing said. “In a large country, a common culture is critical for social cohesion. Sports remain one of the last remaining `monoculture' touchstones that can serve as a common reference point between strangers – the topic that the newest entry-level hire can comfortably discuss with the CEO.”

The filing argued, however, that the traditional media models that allowed broadcasters to air major sporting events are under threat by “the ongoing migration of sports content to subscription-based streaming platforms…This migration is fragmenting access, increasing consumer costs, and undermining longstanding public-interest benefits associated with broadcasting”

The breakdown of this model is also harming local journalism because “live sports programming is a critical component of the broadcast ecosystem, as major sporting events continue to drive the largest audiences and play an essential role in sustaining the economic viability of local broadcast stations. Sports programming is also critical to the financial model that supports local broadcast journalism. Without high-value live sports on broadcast television, local broadcast journalism will suffer.”

More specifically Sinclair noted that “in 2025, 96 of the 100 most-watched U.S. telecasts were sports events, and 92 of those telecasts were NFL or college football games. In an increasingly fragmented media environment, sports continue to dominate the most-watched programs of the year on television. Events such as the Super Bowl, NFL playoff games, the Olympics, the NCAA basketball tournaments, and the World Series regularly attract millions of viewers. These large audiences are in turn critical for advertising dollars for the industry. Advertisers spent approximately $17.7 billion on national linear television sports programming, and NFL games alone generate $6-7 billion in annual advertising revenue across the major broadcast networks. During the 2024-2025 season, NFL games accounted for more than 23 percent of all ad impressions across the big-four networks.”

The shift of media rights to streaming, not only threatens the financial future of broadcasting, it also is creating major problems for viewers and fans. “One survey shows that 87 percent of sports fans find it at least somewhat frustrating to figure out where to watch the games they want to see, and almost 25 percent feel very frustrated,” Sinclair said. “Nearly two-thirds of sports fans say it’s a “hassle” to use multiple services to watch games during a season, and half say that it has become harder to find the games they want to watch compared to a year ago. This fragmentation has consequences for viewers. Almost two-thirds of fans say having games on different platforms makes it more difficult to check on other games being shown at the same time.”

In addition, Sinclair stressed that “professional sports leagues operate within a longstanding public-private compact that includes both substantial taxpayer support and unique regulatory advantages.”

In addition to antitrust exemptions that allow the leagues to negotiate media rights for all the teams, Sinclair noted that “state and local governments have committed tens of billions of dollars, estimated at approximately $30–35 billion, to the construction and financing of major league sports facilities in the United States. The median public contribution to sports venue construction costs between 1970 and 2020 was 73 percent of total construction costs. Public subsidies for professional sports facilities also frequently take the form of property tax abatements and preferential tax treatment, further increasing the public cost of stadium developments. In many jurisdictions, stadiums are either fully exempt from local property taxes or subject to long-term abatements that significantly reduce teams’ tax liabilities. At the federal level, additional subsidies arise through the use of tax-exempt municipal bonds, which have cost the U.S. Treasury billions in foregone revenue. Economic research find that these public investments rarely generate meaningful economic returns in terms of job creation or local growth. Economic research is unequivocal: These subsidies are a boondoggle for taxpayers.”

To address those issues and to strengthen the ability of broadcasters to acquire high-profile sports rights, Sinclair repeated longstanding industry arguments that ending station ownership caps would create larger and more financially powerful station groups. “Modernizing the Commission’s ownership rules would enable broadcasters to achieve the scale necessary to better compete for sports rights,” Sinclair argued.

In addition, the FCC should take steps to speed the transition to NextGen TV/ATSC 3.0.

“NextGen TV will enable broadcasters to offer improved picture quality, enhanced audio, and interactive features that will make broadcast a more attractive and competitive distribution platform for major sports leagues,” Sinclair argued. “NextGen TV also, for the first time, allows broadcasters the ability to offer content protection to rights holders – something literally every other player in the video ecosystem can already do.”

The full filing is available here.

The National Association of Broadcasters is praising the FCC and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) for opening an investigation into how professional sports rights are currently negotiated with an eye towards leveling the playing field for broadcasters.

In February, FCC Chairman Brandon Carr announced that the FCC’s Media Bureau had issued a Public Notice seeking public comment about the current state of sports TV and in particular, how the increasingly fragmented viewing landscape is impacting how viewers watch sports on TV. Deadline for public comments is March 27.

"Given the nexus between sports programming and the local media marketplace—as well as the FCC’s ongoing work to support local news and reporting—we believe it is important for us to evaluate the sports media landscape and understand how changes have impacted consumers and broadcasters," the bureau stated in its notice.

In December, NAB launched a campaign “Keep the Game On” to advocate for keeping live professional sports available on free TV and to increase public awareness of how outdated ownership rules impact broadcasters' competitiveness in negotiating with Big Tech over sports rights.

"Games that once aired on local broadcast stations are increasingly gobbled up by Big Tech platforms, hidden behind paywalls that come with steep monthly bills,” said NAB President Curtis LeGeyt. “That is not progress, it is a problem. Broadcasters need the ability to compete and keep sports accessible to everyone."

This week, the association highlighted this recent tweet from Sen. Lee:

“We’re grateful for Chairman Carr and Sen. Lee providing leadership on this important topic as consumers are increasingly frustrated by the scattering of live sports across multiple streaming platforms,” the NAB wrote in a blog. “Fans want to easily watch their hometown teams and marquee national events on broadcast television, free and accessible to all. As the biggest games in football and basketball have shown, broadcast television continues to bring communities together around the moments that matter most.”

“But outdated government ownership rules make it harder for broadcasters to compete for sports rights and the advertising revenue that supports them,” they added. “In today’s fragmented media marketplace, broadcasters must compete against global streaming companies and Big Tech platforms that face none of the same regulatory restrictions.”

The NAB’s web page for ownership rules is here and its "Keep the Game On" web page is here.

WASHINGTON—Broadcasters from across the country have gathered in Washington, D.C., for the National Association of Broadcasters’ (NAB) annual State Leadership Conference (SLC), an advocacy event where local radio and television leaders champion policies that strengthen stations’ ability to serve their communities.

Steve Patterson, host of Hubbard Radio’s myTalk 107.1 and the nationally syndicated “Donna & Steve Show,” emceed the program, which focused on broadcasters’ indispensable role in delivering trusted news, emergency information and local connection to communities nationwide.

On March 4, attendees will head to Capitol Hill to meet with their members of Congress to discuss policy priorities critical to local stations.

NAB president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt delivered remarks on March 3 to 570 attendees, outlining the urgent need to modernize outdated regulations that prevent local stations from competing on a level playing field with global technology platforms. He underscored broadcasters’ unique and essential role in public safety, civic engagement and strengthening local democracy.

Broadcasters also heard from key policymakers shaping broadcast policy, including Sen. Ed Markey (MA), who spoke about the enduring value of broadcast radio and his leadership on the bipartisan effort to pass the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. Sen. John Barrasso (WY) addressed the threat a performance tax poses to local radio stations and the importance of broadcasters in their communities. Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-09), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, spoke about the need for broadcast ownership rules to reflect today’s landscape and the importance of keeping AM radio in cars.

NAB’s advocacy team provided a comprehensive policy briefing led by executive vide president of government relations Shawn Donilon, equipping attendees with the latest updates on ownership reform, the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act and other legislative priorities.

NAB executive vice president, public affairs and chief of staff Michelle Lehman also highlighted NAB’s America 250 campaign, outlining opportunities for stations to engage audiences in the commemoration of the nation’s milestone anniversary.

The conference also celebrated excellence and leadership within broadcasting. NAB presented the prestigious Crystal Radio Awards, honoring stations for outstanding community service, and Ralph Oakley received the Chuck Sherman Television Leadership Award in recognition of his exceptional contributions to local television.

NAB senior Vice president, State, International and Board Relations Sue Keenom recognized outgoing state association leaders for their dedicated service to broadcasters and their communities, including:

• Jim Timm, president, Nebraska Broadcasters Association and outgoing president, National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations (NASBA)
• Pat Roberts, Florida Association of Broadcasters
• Neal Gladner, Arkansas Broadcasters Association
• Vance Harrison, Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters
• Cathy Hiebert, Alaska Broadcasters Association
• Chris Kline, Arizona Media Association
• Keith Shipman, Washington State Broadcasters Association

As broadcasters prepare for meetings with lawmakers tomorrow, this year’s State Leadership Conference reinforced a singular message: Local radio and television stations remain the most trusted and resilient source of news and information in communities across America.

WASHINGTON—DirecTV has filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission that include a new study rebutting longstanding arguments that lifting ownership caps on station groups will lead to better local news.

In comments filed with the FCC over the years, the NAB and broadcast groups have argued that the total hours of local broadcast news coverage has increased in the last decade.

In response to the study, the NAB issued the following statement: “Over the past decade, as broadcasters gained modest additional scale, local news output rose sharply. From 2011 to 2023, local news telecasts increased by more than 40%, and total hours grew nearly 50%. Scale strengthens local journalism. The record is clear. The truth is local news will not survive if broadcasters are forced to compete at a disadvantage. It is no surprise that a pay TV competitor that is not limited in how many homes it can reach nationwide would prefer that outcome. DirecTV is not raising these arguments to protect local journalism. It is protecting its bottom line. Modernizing outdated ownership rules will ensure local stations can continue delivering the trusted news and lifesaving emergency information our communities depend on.”

The DirecTV study looks at the diversity of local news content by examining the impact on local news in markets co-owned stations where a station group owns more than one TV station.

“Recent history shows that when broadcasters acquire a second, third, or fourth station in a local market, they consolidate news operations, leaving one newsroom where there had been two, three, or four, thus decreasing the quality of local news,” DirecTV said in a letter to the FCC that included the study. “This is not a speculative claim. In fact, in the context of the proposed Nexstar-Tegna transaction, we’ve filed evidence demonstrating that Nexstar, for example, has done this with every duopoly or triopoly it possesses.”

“We now show that these results also apply to broadcasters other than Nexstar,” the letter noted. “By our calculations, in the vast majority of markets in which any broadcaster holds a duopoly, triopoly, or quadropoly today, they have consolidated news operations. We also attach a presentation that describes the methodology behind these assertions. Specifically, we studied every existing Big Four broadcast duopoly, triopoly, and quadropoly that we could identify and found that when a broadcaster owns at least two Big Four stations in a market, they generally combine the news operations–station websites, news directors, and on-air talent–of those two, three, or four stations. In the majority of duopolies, triopolies, and quadropolies, the co-owned stations offered essentially the same local news.”

“The evidence conclusively demonstrates that broadcaster consolidation reduces competition, output, and quality in local news,” DirecTV concluded. “Accordingly, we urge the Commission to reject broadcasters’ proposals that would create more duopolies, triopolies, and quadropolies and decrease local news content.”

For the study, the researchers looked at any Nielsen DMA with a Big Four duopoly, triopoly, or quadropoly owned by one of America’s top ten broadcasters, excluding the ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox O&Os and found 98 duopolies, 15 triopolies, and 3 quadropolies included, totaling 253 Big Four affiliations.

The researchers then measured how often these stations groups consolidated their local online news to a single site, regardless of how many stations are involved; how they used one news director to determine what’s news across the two or three, or even four Big Four stations involved in any single DMA; and how they shared journalists and on-air news talent from one station to another, rather than operating distinctly.

That analysis found that

• For all broadcasters, 90.5% of news sites are shared in DMAs with joint ownership of multiple Big Four affiliations.
• For all broadcasters, 98.2% of News Directors are shared in DMAs with joint ownership of multiple Big Four affiliations.
• For all broadcasters, 97.3% of news talent are shared in DMAs with joint ownership of multiple Big Four affiliations.
• Among the top 10 station groups, 87.3% of news sites are shared in DMAs owned by Top 10 Broadcasters with joint ownership of multiple Big Four affiliations.
• 97.4% of News Directors are shared in DMAs owned by Top 10 Broadcasters with joint ownership of multiple Big Four affiliations.
• 96.1% of news talent are shared in DMAs owned by Top 10 Broadcasters with joint ownership of multiple Big Four affiliations.

DirecTV filed the study and comments as part of the FCC Quadrennial Review of Ownership Rules.

In response to the study, the NAB issued the following statement: “Over the past decade, as broadcasters gained modest additional scale, local news output rose sharply. From 2011 to 2023, local news telecasts increased by more than 40%, and total hours grew nearly 50%. Scale strengthens local journalism. The record is clear.

The truth is local news will not survive if broadcasters are forced to compete at a disadvantage. It is no surprise that a pay TV competitor that is not limited in how many homes it can reach nationwide would prefer that outcome.

DirecTV is not raising these arguments to protect local journalism. It is protecting its bottom line. Modernizing outdated ownership rules will ensure local stations can continue delivering the trusted news and lifesaving emergency information our communities depend on.”

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission has approved license transfers for three stations to subsidiaries of Sinclair. The decision involved WEYI-TV, Saginaw, Michigan, WGTU(TV), Traverse City, Michigan and WHAM-TV, Rochester, New York.

DirecTV had opposed the transfers, arguing in part that the deals would give Sinclair more power to demand higher retransmission fees, which in turn would increase pay TV programming costs for consumers.

More specifically the transfers involved:

• The assignment of the license of WEYI-TV, Saginaw, Michigan, from HSH Flint (WEYI) to Sinclair subsidiary WEYI Licensee, LLC.
• The assignment of the license of WGTU(TV), Traverse City, Michigan, from Traverse City (WGTU-TV) Licensee, Inc., a subsidiary of Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation (Cunningham), to Sinclair subsidiary WGTU Licensee, LLC.
• The assignment of the license of WHAM-TV, Rochester, New York, from Deerfield Media (Rochester) Licensee, LLC (Deerfield) to Sinclair subsidiary WHAM Licensee, LLC.

When the applications were first filed, the deals would have required an exemption from FCC ownership rules. However, as previously reported, a Federal court ruling in the Zimmer Radio case overturned a longstanding prohibition on owning two of the top four stations in the market.

In its filing opposing all three transfers, DirecTV continued to oppose the deals. It argued that it had standing to file a petition in opposition because the transfers would raise retransmission fees and cause the operator direct economic harm. DirecTV contended that “[n]othing in Zimmer Radio alters the Applicants’ affirmative obligation to show that the proposed license transfers are in the public interest.”

In addition, it argued that local television consolidation gives broadcasters more leverage to charge higher retransmission fees, which leads to higher bills for multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) customers.

DirecTV also contended that Sinclair did not meet FCC standards that the transactions provide verifiable benefits because Sinclair only provided vague and non-measurable assertions that “synergies” would enable Sinclair to invest in the acquired stations and expand programming.

In its ruling the Media Bureau found that DirecTV did meet the requirements for standing but rejected its other arguments.

"[W]e find that the proposed transactions fully comply with the Commission’s rules, including the post-Zimmer Radio Local Television Ownership Rule, and there are no issues or potential public interest harms identified in the record that would require further consideration.," the Media Bureau noted in a letter to the applicants affirming the license transfers. "Notably, while the Commission will consider transaction-specific objections to otherwise rule-compliant transactions, we find that DIRECTV has failed to advance any such objections. Accordingly, we conclude that grant of the Applications will result in public interest benefits and serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity."

More information 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—During a major Senate hearing on broadcast ownership caps, witnesses and U.S. Senators generally agreed that local journalism faces serious challenges that threaten local communities and the larger democratic system but had widely divergent views on whether the elimination of broadcast ownership rules would address the problem.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, convened a full committee hearing on Feb. 10 that examined the Federal Communications Commission’s current broadcast media ownership rules for over two hours with four major expert witnesses, including NAB president and CEO, Curtis LeGeyt.

In opening remarks at the hearing, which was titled “We Interrupt This Program: Media Ownership in the Digital Age,” Senator Cruz highlighted the fact that a rapidly changing media landscape has raised many questions about the ongoing relevance of the ownership rules

“It is understandable why Congress placed limits on broadcast media ownership intended to prevent a monopoly on programming and viewpoints,” Cruz said. “Indeed, for much of the last century, holding a broadcast license was often called a license to print money with limited competition, station owners commanded massive audiences and steady profits, but that era has passed. Cable and satellite ushered in 24/7 news, while the internet and mobile technologies unleashed a wave of streaming services, news and entertainment sites and social media flooding American screens with endless content and fragmenting what were previously universal audiences. Today, broadcasters are fighting to stay competitive against media and tech companies with national and often global reach,” raising important questions about whether those rules are “still relevant” or need to be rolled back, eliminated or reformed.

Ranking Member Sen. Maria Cantwell, (D-Washington) highlighted the importance of local news and the ongoing crisis in local journalism but appeared less sympathetic to the idea that eliminating ownership caps would address the problem.

After noting the rise of AI could also accelerate the ongoing decline in local journalism, she pointed to the recent layoffs at the Washington Post and noted that the number of local journalists has declined from 40 per 100,000 people in the U.S. in 2002 to only 8 today.

“I'm here to fight for local journalism,” she said, adding, however, that broadcast industry consolidation could actually reduce the diversity in local news. “If the Nexstar Tegna deal goes through, a single company will control 265 stations capable of reaching 80% of all the television households, more than double the current cap…To me that is not more local voices, that is fewer," she said.

“Changes to the cap do not address the real structural problem, and they risk reducing the diversity of local voices without solving the underlying problems of economics,” she concluded.

In his prepared testimony to the hearing, NAB's LeGeyt highlighted the importance of local broadcast news in providing live-saving information during severe weather events.

“During recent crippling winter storms across vast swaths of the country, and during devastating floods in both Texas and Washington State, it was local broadcasters – not global streamers or national pay-TV channels – that remained on the ground and on the air in those communities, providing life-saving information to their viewers,” LeGeyt said. “And beyond times of emergency, broadcasters are delivering the fact-based, most-trusted journalism that keeps your constituents and communities informed and connected.”

“Unfortunately, this local journalism is facing growing financial pressure,” LeGeyt added, arguing that ownership rules have severely restricted broadcasters’ ability to compete against big tech companies who do not face national ownership caps and have siphoned off billions in ad revenue from local media.

“Fewer than half of TV stations now report that their local news operations are profitable. Facing ever-rising news production costs and declining ad revenues, some broadcasters are simply unable to continue maintaining their own separate news operations,” he said. “Without modernizing these ownership rules, local television news – the last bastion of truly local journalism in many communities – will suffer the same fate as thousands of local newspapers.”

In testimony to the Committee Chris Ruddy, CEO of the cable news network Newsmax argued that ownership rules need to be retained ensure the diversity of local news and to prevent local broadcasters from abusing their power in retransmission consent negotiations with pay TV operators. The market power of larger station groups like Nexstar have already hurt consumers by forcing operators to raise pay TV video process and made it harder for independent media companies to compete with larger media conglomerates, he said.

To bolster his point, Ruddy noted that “last year, Newsmax delivered five times the rating of NewsNation,” yet Nexstar’s market power forced operators in retrans negotiations “not only to carry NewsNation, but to pay license fees higher than that paid to Newsmax.”

Ruddy also dismissed LeGeyt’s argument that ownership caps have produced an "existential crisis” that threatens the future of broadcasting. He stressed that larger station groups remain very profitable, with Nexstar reporting $1.8 billion in earnings before interest depreciation and amortization of $1.8 billion in 2024, Tegna producing $813 million in EBITDA and Sinclair seeing $800 million in EBITDA.

“The broadcast industry has not [offered] the Senate…any data that proves that they're in crisis,” Ruddy said. “If you look at…the top seven TV station groups all made pretty much in excess of $500 million in EBITDA in 2024. They're inventing this because they know they can make billions of dollars by waiving the rule, and it doesn't serve the public interest, competition or the diversity of voices that the public would like, especially with local news.”

Nor will eliminating the ownership rules necessarily produce more investment in local journalism, Ruddy argued. “We know that after Nexstar merged with Tribune, profits surged while employment dropped from 16,193 employees to 12,142 – a 25% decrease – in just one year,” he said. “In 14 markets, Nexstar now operates two highly rated stations but has combined their local newsrooms to cut costs. In its proposed merger with Tegna, Nexstar projects more than $300 million in immediate cost savings, including $135 million from increased retrans fees and $165 million from local station savings—typically that’s achieved through newsroom consolidation.”

“Newsmax is not alone,” in opposing changes in ownership caps. said Ruddy.

“CPAC and the National Religious Broadcasters have both filed objections with the FCC, warning that lifting the cap would harm consumers and suppress diversity of viewpoints," he said.

In contrast Thomas Johnson, former General Council at the FCC and currently Partner and Co-Chair of Issues and Appeals, at Wiley Rein LLP, argued that the FCC should eliminate the rules.

“In my view, all of these prescriptive rules are outdated and ought to be repealed, and chief among these is the national television broadcast ownership cap,” Johnson said.

Johnson also provided extensive legal arguments supporting the idea that the FCC has the power to raise or eliminate the cap.

“As General Counsel, I defended the agency's bipartisan consensus that the agency has legal authority to eliminate that rule, and I continue to believe so today,” he said. “The Court of Appeals here in D.C. looked at the language in the 1996 act and concluded that it was, `only the starting point from which the commission was to assess the need for further change.’ If Congress intended to eliminate that discretion, the court reasoned, “it need only have enshrined the cap in the statute itself,’” which it didn’t.

Johnson said that his firm represents Nexstar but said he was not speaking on the broadcaster’s behalf.

In his testimony Steve Waldman, president, Rebuild Local News, which works to strengthen local journalism highlighted a crisis in local journalism.

“On average, two newspapers close every week in the United States,” he said. “3,500 have shut down in the last 20 years, and perhaps most importantly, in the last 20 years, there's been a 75% drop in the number of local journalists. That's in print, TV, digital, and the consequences for communities are really alarming. Studies show that areas with less local news have more corruption, more government waste, less civic involvement, less volunteering.”

Waldman said his group had not taken a position on whether local ownership caps should be repealed but stressed that eliminating the caps wouldn’t necessarily necessarily increase investment in local news.

“I actually have some sympathy for both of these arguments,” over the ownership rules, he noted. “Local TV news is incredibly important in some places, it's the only thing left. We really agree that this ought to be looked at through the prism of whether or not it helps local news. On the other hand, there really is a lot of evidence that consolidation has gone in the other direction and actually hollowed out some newsrooms. So my advice would be to look at that question through the prism of whether it's good or bad for local news, and specifically look at whether it maintains or increases or reduces the number of local reporters and editors, not the number of hours, because if you have less local reporters and more hours, what you actually have is more superficial local news or more copying” of news.

The full hearing can be viewed below:

The State of the Net Conference annually focuses on internet-related policy. But for FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the potential rapid consolidation of media ownership was a topic too important to ignore.

In her speech, Gomez acknowledged the financial realities that affect broadcasters today, almost 30 years to the date of the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

But she argued that easing or removing ownership limits for broadcasters should not be considered as the only solution, and in fact, she believes it would end up exacerbating some of the same problems proponents claim it solves.

Most of the commissioner’s comments were geared toward the local TV ownership rules, but the FCC is currently reviewing all of its local ownership rules — including for radio, as we have covered. The National Association of Broadcasters, and other radio groups, support a total removal or easing of current caps, believing that such reform is needed to merely keep radio afloat against big tech.

Gomez argued that ownership concentration ends up hurting consumers the most.

“If the FCC continues down its current path, it risks repeating the same mistake that hollowed out local newspapers, only this time in broadcast television,” she warned.

Blurred lines

Speaking at the event today, the lone Democratic commissioner explained that because the lines once separating communications markets no longer exist, preserving local journalism is more important than ever.

“Even when people get their news through social media, search engines or streaming platforms, much of the original reporting still comes from local journalists,” Gomez said.

Using the newspaper industry as an example, she said there is clear evidence of what happens when local journalism weakens.

“Newspapers were not eliminated because people stopped caring about the news,” Gomez said. “They were hollowed out through consolidation, cost cutting and the loss of advertising revenue to digital platforms, as ownership decisions were increasingly made far from the communities they affected.”

Gomez worked at the FCC three decades ago when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. She said that back then, even with the easing of limits the act allowed, part of its implementation was ensuring that no single voice, company or interest could dominate what communities see, hear and rely on for information.

She acknowledged that broadcasters today are dealing with declining revenues from advertising, digital platform competition and changing consumer habits.

But when consolidation becomes the default solution, Gomez said, it often accelerates “the very decline it is supposed to address.”

“Fewer owners does not just mean fewer balance sheets,” Gomez explained. “It means fewer independent editorial decisions and fewer local perspectives.”

Gomez cited a recent email she received from a viewer stating that a single corporate owner controls or operates most of the major broadcast TV affiliates in their local market. While it might appear that viewers in that market have more options, many of those stations share reporters, crews, anchors and often the same stories, she explained.

She also pointed to a recent poll revealing that nearly three out of four likely voters oppose large broadcast corporations buying or merging with local TV stations.

We reported on a recent poll cited by NAB, which demonstrated the opposite.

Regulatory power

The FCC itself, Gomez said, has used its power to pressure coverage in ways that are favorable to President Trump’s administration, including a recent public notice sent to ensure “equal time” for late-night TV programming. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr later clarified the notice was not geared toward talk-radio shows.

“These billion-dollar media companies have significant business before the FCC. They need regulatory approval for transactions, and they are actively seeking to reduce regulatory guardrails so they can grow even larger,” she said.

“That reality leaves local stations trapped in the middle, as corporate owners weigh regulatory risk against editorial independence and impose their will and their values on communities they may never meaningfully engage with.”

Gomez reminded the audience that Congress established a national TV ownership cap to prevent excessive concentration that threatens competition, localism and viewpoint diversity.

“It is not a suggestion,” she explained. “It is the law.”

She noted that one of the clearest examples of the agency ignoring this is its openness to transactions that would further entrench national dominance, including a potential merger between two major broadcast groups in Tegna and Nexstar that she argued would violate Congress’s restriction.

“The FCC’s responsibility is not to manage consolidation, but to steward a media ecosystem that serves consumers and communities in the real world,” Gomez concluded. “If we keep that focus, we can meet this moment without sacrificing the voices that make our democracy work.”

This article was originally posed by our sister publication Radio World. Their coverage of business and regulatory issues can be found 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—As the NRB 2026 Convention for religious broadcasters gets set to open on Feb. 17, the National Association of Broadcasters has issued a new blog post arguing that eliminating ownership caps will help religious broadcasters better carry out their mission.

“Americans are looking for a media landscape that reflects the full diversity of our communities,” Michelle Lehman, chief of staff and executive vice president, Public Affairs at the NAB wrote in the post. “That includes varied political viewpoints, local journalism, cultural programming and faith-based voices that serve audiences often overlooked by national media. Yet one of the most significant barriers to that goal remains an outdated federal policy: the national television ownership cap.”

In filings with the Federal Communications Commission, religious broadcasters have expressed mixed views regarding the elimination of the current rule that station groups can reach no more than 39% of the population.

The NRB, for example, has filed comments with the FCC opposing changes in ownership rules while one of the largest religious broadcasters, Trinity Broadcasting Network has come out in favor of eliminating ownership caps.

“They [the ownership caps] remain an important tool for preserving localism, protecting viewpoint diversity, and ensuring there is room in the marketplace for mission-driven television stations whose ultimate purpose is not simply distribution, but also ministry, reaching viewers, serving communities, and sharing the Gospel,” the NRB said in a separate blog post explaining its FCC filing.

In the NAB post, Lehman reiterated arguments made by Trinity Broadcasting Network. She said that the Trinity filing “made a compelling case for why this arbitrary limit no longer serves the public interest, stifling the voices of religious broadcasters like themselves.”

“For more than 50 years, Trinity has owned and operated stations that deliver faith-based programming free of charge to viewers in each of its licensed local communities,” wrote Trinity Broadcasting president Michael W. Crouch in a letter to the FCC. “Trinity competes directly with streaming services, digital platform, and multinational technology companies—many of which control access to audiences through opaque algorithms, subscription fees or content moderation policies.”

Like other proponents of ownership deregulation, Trinity argued that these rules no longer reflect the current media landscape where broadcasters compete against national cable networks, global streaming platforms, social media companies and multinational technology firms that face no limits on national reach. Netflix, YouTube, Amazon and TikTok can serve 100% of American households, shape audience behavior through algorithms and monetize attention at unprecedented scale. Local broadcasters, by contrast, remain constrained by a rule that limits their reach to just 39% of U.S. television households.

“For Christian broadcasters, free, over-the-air television remains one of the few distribution platforms where religious expression can reach audiences without gatekeepers, paywalls, or platform bias,” Crouch continues. “Policies that weaken broadcast television therefore weaken religious expression itself.”

“The national ownership cap does exactly that,” Lehman added. “By limiting broadcasters’ ability to achieve scale, it restricts access to capital, reduces investment in content and makes it harder for mission-driven networks to sustain free service in a hyper-competitive marketplace. The FCC has both the authority and the responsibility to modernize its ownership rules. As Trinity Broadcasting Network’s filing makes clear, the national cap no longer reflects marketplace realities and actively undermines core public interest goals.”

“If policymakers truly want to preserve varied voices in American media, including religious broadcasters, they must stop treating scale as the enemy of diversity,” she concluded. “In today’s media environment, scale is often the very thing that makes diversity possible.”

WASHINGTON—As a fast-paced and often controversial year for the Federal Communications Commission comes to a close, the agency’s Chair Brendan Carr has released a very long list of 75 items highlighting what he calls “the FCC’s key wins in 2025.”

Those items directly impacting broadcasters included: efforts to liberalize NextGen TV rules; investigations to hold broadcasters `accountable to their public interest obligations’; completing the approval process for the Skydance acquisition of Paramount with promises that the new owners would “root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media”; the launch of a wide-ranging FCC investigation into network affiliate relationships; the approval of 84 construction permits for TV and radio stations; and rulings that approved station deals allowing station groups to own two top four stations in a market.

“2025 was a historic year for the FCC and I am proud of all the wins we were able to achieve for the American people,” Carr said in a statement. “I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the agency’s talented staff for the great and efficient results that they delivered all year long. But this is just the beginning. The FCC is firing on all cylinders, and we will build on this momentum to deliver even more wins in 2026.”

More specifically, the FCC described some of the “key wins” that most closely touched broadcasters as follows:

• “Approved Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount CBS. As specified in the FCC’s record, Skydance made written commitments to ensure that the new company's programming embodies a diversity of viewpoints from across the political and ideological spectrum. Skydance also adopted measures that can root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media, and committed to enhancing local news and reporting.
• “Sought public comment for the first time in more than 15 years on the relationship between the large, national programmers on the one hand and the many local broadcast television stations on the other.
• “Opened the airwaves and unleashed new voices through grant of 84 construction permits for new noncommercial TV, FM, and low power radio stations. Processed over 7600 other broadcast licensing matters, including 887 license assignments and transfers, plus 714 license renewals.
• “Approved the first new ownership combination of two full-power, top-four ranked, same-market television stations in over five years. Later approved another top-four television station ownership combination.
• “Took action to support and accelerate the nation’s ongoing transition to Next Gen TV (also known as ATSC 3.0). This new technology represents the future of broadcasting and promises to modernize the nation's free and local over-the-air television service, which serves as a vital source of local news and information for many Americans.
• “Removed 98 broadcast rules and requirements that have been identified as obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary, including rules dating back nearly 50 years ago for technologies that have been far surpassed in the media marketplace.
• “Voted to remove 11 outdated and useless rule provisions, including obsolete regulations on telegraph, rabbit-ear broadcast receivers, and telephone booths.
• “Held broadcasters accountable to their public interest obligations and empowered them to serve the interests of local communities."

The full list 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.

While the FCC’s vote in September to consider revising broadcast television ownership rules is long overdue, removing ownership caps will impact other regulations in such a way that requires taking a “holistic” approach to the issue, according to the International Center for Law & Economics.

“The ownership cap is only one piece of a tightly interconnected system of broadcast and carriage regulation,” the conservative think tank wrote in a paper released this week. “Ownership restrictions, Title VI’s retransmission-consent and must-carry rules, and the FCC’s regulatory authority over bargaining standards all interact to shape bargaining power and allocate surplus across the industry. Addressing just one element of this framework risks amplifying distortions in others.

“Indeed, the broadcast-television market is an unusual case in which the prevailing regulatory distortions are directly interrelated, operate on the same products and players, and fall under the same agency’s control," they added. That presents a unique opportunity for the FCC to approach reform holistically, rather than in a piecemeal fashion.”

“Calling current ownership limits of 39% in one market “out-dated”, the group characterized the limit, which was agreed upon in 2004, “a political compromise, rather than an economically grounded metric.”

The paper, "Broadcast Ownership, Retransmission, and the Case for Comprehensive Reform," penned by Eric Fruits, Geoffrey A. Manne, and Kristian Stout, repeats many of the same arguments made by other proponents of changing ownership caps.

Citing competitive pressures from streaming companies, who can reach 100% of U.S. households, they note that “local broadcasters must compete with these services for audiences and advertising revenue, while operating under ownership caps designed for an era in which they were presumed to be dominant media companies. In today’s market, however, broadcasters not only lack market power but face extremely powerful digital competitors whose national scale far exceeds anything broadcasters could legally achieve under the existing limits.”

Such economic pressures have different impacts on local stations depending on their market strength, the authors said, with highly-rated stations cutting back on syndicated content in favor of more local content.

“For market leaders, local news represents 'must-have' content that national competitors cannot replicate, providing leverage in fee negotiations and valuable differentiation for local advertisers,” they wrote.

Meanwhile, lower-rated local stations are having to cut back on local production in favor of national news feeds from their station group, as is the case of WNWO, Sinclair Broadcast Group's NBC affiliate in Toledo, Ohio, which abandoned local news in 2023 in favor of Sinclair’s Washington, D.C.-based “National News Desk” programming, supplemented with network and syndicated content.

The group noted that tepid viewer response to the changes only reinforced the notion that local viewers are looking elsewhere for news.

“Notably, consumer response to WNWO-TV’s changes was minimal, with no significant public outcry reported,” the group wrote. “The station’s small audience simply substituted to competing local newscasts, suggesting consumer indifference to programming changes at underperforming stations. This seems consistent with Nielsen Holdings data showing that growing numbers of Americans prefer online news sources over television news.”

The group concludes that the way broadcast station groups approach maximizing profits can differ across the industry, depending on current economic conditions and that stations need more flexibility to be able to compete against other media.

“The greatest threat to localism, therefore, may not be rising concentration in mid-sized markets, but the financial collapse of stations that are prevented from adapting to modern competitive realities,” they wrote.

The group questions the relevancy of the broadcast industry’s biggest source of revenue— retransmission fees. Citing broadcasters’ ability to distribute programming through websites, apps and streaming platforms, the authors wrote that the initial justification when the legislation mandating must carry was passed in 1992—that cable served as a “bottleneck” towards program access—no longer exists.

“Without the bottleneck problem, the economic justification for mandatory-carriage rules collapses,” they wrote.

The group also noted the occurrence of frequent network blackouts when broadcast groups fail to reach carriage agreements, as illustrated by the recent nearly two week removal of Disney and ABC programming from Youtube TV.

It concluded that both sides were to blame, adding that "these complex negotiations might be avoided entirely if the mandatory framework were eliminated, allowing standard commercial relationships to govern carriage.”

The group concludes that, in revising ownership caps, the FCC should remove retransmission consent in favor of a more laissez-faire approach.

“The most coherent approach would eliminate the retransmission-consent framework entirely, treating broadcasters like any other content creator and allowing copyright law and voluntary contracts to govern distributor relationships," they wrote. "This would end the regulatory asymmetry between broadcasters and streaming competitors, while removing the advantages broadcasters hold over independent networks.”

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission, which is continuing to rapidly ramp up its operations after the end of the federal government shutdown, has set deadlines for comments and reply comments in its 2022 Quadrennial Review (MB Docket No. 22-459).

On September 30, 2025, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to seek comment on the Commission’s media ownership rules pursuant to section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the Commission to review such rules every four years to determine whether they remain “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition” and to “repeal or modify any regulation [that it] determines to be no longer in the public interest.”

The 2022 Quadrennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules is a particularly important one for broadcasters as several station groups have announced or seem to be pursuing deals that would put them over existing ownership caps.

The 2022 Quadrennial review will take up three rules, the Local Radio Ownership Rule, the Local Television Ownership Rule, and the Dual Network Rule. The NPRM set deadlines for filing comments and reply comments at 30 and 60 days, after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register.

In a newly filed Public Notice the FCC's Media Bureau announce that the NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2025, shortly after the end of the government shutdown. That means comments must be submitted no later than December 17, 2025 and that reply comments must be submitted no later than January 16, 2026.

The NPRM is available on the Commission’s website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-64A1.pdf.

WASHINGTON—Federal Communications Commissioner Anna Gomez acknowledged broadcasters will receive greater benefit from ATSC 3.0 if the agency raises or eliminates the national broadcast ownership cap before voting to move forward with the agency’s congressionally mandated 2022 quadrennial review of broadcast-ownership rules.

“A station group with a nationwide footprint and data about their audiences will be able to compete for national targeted advertising campaigns,” Gomez, the FCC’s sole Democrat, said. “They also plan to sell datacasting services using the broadcast spectrum made available by the more efficient standard to, for example, broadly and efficiently transmit technical updates to devices such as phones and cars outside traditional broadband connections.”

(Editor’s note: Gray Media, Nexstar Media Group, E.W. Scripps and Sinclair formed the EdgeBeam Wireless joint venture in January 2025 with the goal of achieving a near nationwide footprint for 3.0-based datacasting services.)

Saying 3.0 datacasting “may well be a great use of spectrum,” Gomez called for a thorough examination of “the policy implications of allowing this before it happens.”

The commissioner, who appeared to be thoroughly knowledgeable about NextGen TV, recognized that the ATSC 3.0 standard will enable broadcasters to use their spectrum more efficiently, which may enable them to tap into new revenue streams, such as targeted advertising and datacasting. She also acknowledged that “the financial pressures on local broadcasters are very real.”

However, she noted that transitioning to NextGen TV raises questions about costs associated with 3.0 as well as related policy issues that must be considered.

During today’s monthly FCC Open Meeting, the commissioner pointed to NAB’s rulemaking petition—without specifically naming it—to establish dates certain for sunsetting ATSC 1.0 and completing the transition to 3.0.

(Editor’s note: In February, NAB filed a petition for rulemaking for a two-phase ATSC 1.0 sunset with markets 1-55 shutting down 1.0 in February 2028 and the rest in February 2030.)

“Broadcasters can use this [NextGen TV] to evolve technologically and to provide additional services to better compete with digital platforms, through both services they offer and through targeted advertising they will sell,” said Gomez. “It will allow more efficient use of spectrum, which will in turn free up spectrum for non-broadcast uses they can monetize.”

While there are “many good things about this technology,” completing a NextGen TV transition will financially affect CE manufacturers, MVPDs and consumers, she said.

The principles guiding the commission as it moves forward with its quadrennial review as well as possibly sunsetting the legacy DTV standard should be protecting “localism, viewpoint diversity and competition,” she said.

“Financial gains for corporate giants … [are] not a basis to abandon our, and broadcasters’, obligations to serve the public interest,” she said.

“The question remains, however, what can we do, how do we move forward to maintain and grow this critical infrastructure of democracy that depends on the broadcast ecosystem?”

Gomez called on all stakeholders to approach these issues with “an open mind” to find changes that can be made to existing rules that “both shore up the economics of broadcast television and preserve the public interest.”

WASHINGTON—The National Association of Broadcasters is applauding the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to put the delayed 2022 quadrennial review of broadcast ownership rules on its agenda this month.

“We commend [FCC} Chairman [Brendan] Carr for jump-starting the long-overdue 2022 Quadrennial Ownership Review. Outdated rules have held broadcasters back for too long,” said NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. “Modernizing them means stronger local journalism, more investment in communities and the live sports fans count on. Broadcasters welcome this long-awaited step forward.”

The NAB and other broadcasters have long been pushing the FCC and Congress to abolish ownership caps on broadcast station groups, which they contend put broadcasters at a competitive disadvantage to big tech companies. As part of that effort, the NAB launched another campaign last week to end those ownership rules.

It isn’t immediately clear, however, the 2022 Quadrennial Review will proceed. As of 7 p.m. ET, the FCC had not posted an agenda for its Sept. 30 Open Meeting or supplied materials relating to the items that will be under consideration at the meeting.

In a Sept. 8 blog post, however, Carr listed a number of items that will be under consideration in September. Near the bottom of his blog, in the fourth of five items on the list, he provided a few details regarding the quadrennial review.

“For our fourth item on the agenda, we will vote to kick off the commission’s quadrennial review of our broadcast ownership rules," Carr wrote. "The FCC is required by law to review certain broadcast ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules remain ‘necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.’ We will be seeking comment on the Local Radio Ownership Rule, which limits the total number of radio stations that may be commonly owned in a local market; the Local Television Rule, which limits a single entity from owning more than two television stations in the same local market; and the Dual Network Rule, which prohibits a merger between or among the Big Four broadcast networks.”

Very notably, Carr did not mention national ownership caps, which is the primary focus of broadcast lobbying efforts.

The FCC is considering those national ownership caps in a separate docket.

In July, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the FCC’s rules against a station group owning more than one of the top-four TV stations in audience share in a given market. Both Carr and the NAB applauded that decision.

Eliminating those rules will help certain recently announced station swaps and sales pass regulatory review.

WASHINGTON—The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has announced a new phase in its longstanding campaign to urge Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to overturn existing broadcast ownership rules, which the group argues puts the industry at a severe competitive disadvantage with the global Big Tech companies that dominate the streaming and digital ad landscape.

The NAB campaign underscores what is at stake for local viewers: access to trusted news, emergency information and the live sports that bring communities together, paying particular attention to the role that broadcasters play in providing free access to football, the group reported.

Since April, NAB’s campaign has aired nearly a quarter million television and radio spots across 192 media markets, generating more than 1 billion impressions and $43 million in airtime from TV and radio stations. That reach has translated into action: supporters have sent more than 174,000 emails and 34,000 tweets directly to members of Congress and FCC commissioners, demonstrating strong public demand for modernized rules that allow free, local broadcasting to compete with Big Tech, the group reported.

New creative just released by the NAB also highlights what it calls one of the most pressing issues facing consumers: the risk of losing live sports on free broadcast channels.

A national survey of likely voters conducted in August confirms strong, bipartisan support for keeping sports on local broadcast stations. Among respondents with a firm opinion, an overwhelming 83% said they prefer games on broadcast compared to just 17% who prefer paid streaming – a preference consistent across every demographic and political affiliation, the broadcaster funded group said.

“Local stations are serving communities with live sports, trusted local news and life-saving emergency coverage — all available for free to every American,” said NAB president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. “But outdated rules are shackling these stations from growing and innovating at a time when Big Tech operates with limitless scale and zero public interest obligations. Consumers deserve more — not fewer — local journalists on the ground and live sporting events accessible without a subscription. The FCC must act quickly to level the playing field so broadcasters can continue investing in the content communities rely on most.”

Calls to modernize ownership have been echoed by state broadcaster associations, the House and Senate, right of center and community groups, all urging policymakers to level the playing field so broadcasters can continue to grow and serve their communities, the NAB said.

TV Tech's extensive coverage of the FCC and the filings made relating to the broadcast regulations can be found here.

The docket where broadcasters and other groups have filed comments with the FCC can be found here.

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—NBCUniversal has told the Federal Communications Commission that it should not establish different ownership requirements for stations owned by companies who own broadcast networks, such as NBC, and station groups that do not own broadcast networks.

Notably, the filing did not take a position on whether the FCC should eliminate ownership caps, as the NAB and many broadcasters have argued.

NBCU stressed in its filing that it was only responding "to the following question in the Public Notice [asking for public comments on broadcast ownership rules]: if `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?’ The answer is no. Differential treatment of broadcast licensees based on their ownership has no basis in law or policy.”

The response illustrates some of the conflicting regulatory impulses faced by large media conglomerates like NBCU, which is owned by a broadband and cable operator, Comcast, and is in the process of splitting itself up into two companies. When the split is completed in 2026, one of those companies will own its cable networks; the other will own its broadcast networks, streaming operations, Hollywood studios and TV stations.

Comcast is an important member of the pay TV group NCTA, which is opposed to lifting the ownership caps. The NBC network and NBC-owned stations were one of the few broadcast groups that did not join an NAB-backed filing calling for complete elimination of all broadcast ownership caps.

The joint NAB/broadcaster filing also attacked the idea of a two tiered system of ownership rules, with different rules for network owned and operated stations (O&Os) and station groups that were not owned by broadcast networks. The Fox owned stations have also come out against a two tiered system of ownership caps.

The idea of a two tiered system is related to ongoing attacks by the Trump administration and FCC chair Brendan Carr on alleged political bias in broadcast network news coverage.

FCC chair Brendan Carr has on numerous occasions blasted the broadcast networks for political bias, following arguments made by President Donald Trump. On August 24, Trump issued a social media post blasting the political coverage of ABC and NBC that called on the FCC to take away their licenses.

Trump has repeatedly made such claims even though the FCC does not “license” broadcast networks and as such would be unable to remove licenses it does not issue.

The FCC does, however, license individual stations who carry those networks. Carr has repeatedly asserted the agency has the right to remove the licenses of stations, including stations owned by broadcast networks, for violations of public interest requirements and "news bias."

Carr has also argued that he would like to help local broadcasters by reducing or eliminating the ownership caps. A two tier ownership system that keeps restrictions on existing O&Os but eliminates those for other station groups that do not own networks would address those conflicting impulses, hurting the networks while helping many local broadcast groups.

“What I would do is empower those local broadcasters [who] actually serve their local communities,” Carr has said.. “There's lots of ways we can do that. Looking at ownership reform might be one way to do it…So I want to ultimately empower those local stations and, frankly, constrain some of the power of those national programmers.”

In its filing, NBCU argued that the FCC lacks the authority to apply different ownership caps to different broadcasters. “By reaffirming that the national ownership cap applies equally to all persons and entities, without regard to corporate ownership, Congress confirmed that the Commission lacks statutory authority to pick and choose only certain persons or entities for which the FCC could eliminate or modify the national ownership cap.”

“The First Amendment also precludes singling out certain networks for differential treatment in any elimination or modification of the national ownership cap,” the filing also argues. “It is axiomatic that the First Amendment “protects speech and speaker,” and the government cannot single out “disfavored speakers” for restrictions. By offering relief to only certain entities and not others, based solely on the ownership composition of those entities and without any other legitimate justification, such disparate treatment would be unconstitutional.”

The filing also stressed that hurting the network O&Os would also hurt local broadcasters. “Under the guise of promoting localism, the Public Notice suggests that the FCC could relax or eliminate the national television ownership cap with respect to all stations other than those owned by certain of the networks,” NBCU argued. “The proposal to treat networks differently than other television station owners fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the networks’ contributions to their local television markets.”

“NBCU is a local broadcaster. NBCU owns and operates 36 television stations originating local programming across 16 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These stations provide locally focused coverage of issues and stories that affect the lives of local audiences, produced by experienced journalists who live and work in the communities they cover. NBCU’s local stations employ over 4,000 people (including over 2,000 news professionals) and provide an average of more than 150 daily hours of local news, weather, consumer reporting, and sports coverage across free over-the-air, streaming, and digital platforms. These network-owned stations are leaders in protecting their local communities during severe weather events and are at the forefront of supporting and advocating for local victims of business fraud, theft, and abuse.”

“As a local broadcaster, NBCU is similarly situated to other, non-network owned television stations that are operating in local markets,” NBCU concluded. “Thus, to the extent the FCC’s goal in revisiting the national television ownership cap is the promotion of localism, that goal is only furthered by affording the same treatment to all local television stations, regardless of ownership.”

The full filing is available here.

WASHINGTON—As dealmaking for broadcast stations heats up and station groups eye potential acquisitions, the National Association of Broadcasters has filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission saying, “It is It is time—indeed, past time—for the Commission to expeditiously eliminate the national cap to ensure a more level playing field that allows broadcasters to not only survive, but also to thrive.”

The filing was made following the regulator’s request for public comments on current ownership rules and comes at a time when broadcasters have high hopes that ownership caps will finally be repealed.

In the August 4 filing, the NAB repeated many familiar argues that broadcasters have been severely hurt by out-dated ownership caps put in place decades before the rise of digital media, streaming TV, Netflix, mass adoption of the Internet, social media and the enormous power that Google, Facebook and Amazon have over the advertising market.

“Originally adopted in 1941 and unchanged since 2004, the nearly 85-year-old national broadcast television ownership rule prevents all TV broadcasters—but no other video or advertising platforms—from even potentially reaching more than 39% of the total number of TV households in the nation,” the filing said. “No other medium faces even a remotely similar restriction, and its continued imposition unfairly and improperly skews the market in favor of streaming platforms and other national and international technology and media conglomerates (including distributors) to the detriment of viewers of free over-the-air (OTA) broadcast TV in communities throughout the nation.”

“The record shows that the need for TV broadcasters to gain scale now has become an emergency,” the NAB complained. “No rational basis exists for retaining a national restriction on any TV broadcasters in a marketplace where all broadcast television combined garners only 18.5% of total TV usage in the country, while unconstrained streaming platforms garner 46% (with YouTube alone receiving 12.8% of all TV usage). Giant digital advertising platforms, moreover, dominate the advertising marketplace—the foundation supporting free OTA broadcasting— to the detriment of TV stations, whose real (i.e., inflation adjusted) advertising revenues fell by nearly 43% from 2000-2024. Television station owners—each of whom are unfairly prevented from even trying to serve TV households and attract advertisers nationally—cannot hope to compete with streaming and tech platforms having (inter)national reach and with increasingly consolidated pay TV/broadband providers.”

The data-heavy filing, which cites scores of research studies and more than 20 articles from TV Tech, also lays out the legal authority for the FCC to abolish the national ownership cap.

“The revolution wrought by the internet and digital technologies has altered the media and advertising landscape beyond recognition. In this environment, an ownership rule imposed on only one market participant—broadcast TV—does not promote the public interest but hurts it,” the filing said. “The record shows no justification for retaining an ex ante limitation placed just on TV broadcasters in a market characterized by unprecedented competition and content diversity, overwhelming consumer choice, and abundant options for advertisers. On the contrary, the record demonstrates that repealing the national ownership TV rule is not merely important or urgent but is a true emergency for TV broadcasters’ competitive viability."

The full filing is available here.

Other filings on the topic can be found here.

WASHINGTON—Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr says that the agency's 2022 Quadrennial Review of broadcast ownership regulation “will be inspired” by a recent 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the 2018 Quadrennial Review that vacated the agency's rules against a station group owning more than one of the top-four TV stations in audience share in a given market.

Carr applauded the ruling shortly after it was released on July 23, and made additional remarks on the ruling's impact during a press conference held after the July Open Meeting on July 24.

“A couple of things coming out of the decision I think are significant,” Carr said. “One, obviously we have to move forward with the Quadrennial here at the FCC, there was a PN [Public Notice] at least, that was issued for the 2022. There's some debate on whether that officially launched the 2022 or not. But we need to be moving forward with that, and we'll do so with this new decision in mind.”

“The decision does a couple things,” he said. “One, it makes clear the deregulatory intent that Congress had when it set the FCC down on this path of the Quadrennial reviews. Two, it eliminates one of the three rules left on the TV side.”

“So that potentially makes the FCC inquiry a little narrower, which would be a good thing,” Carr added. “I think we will be inspired by the approach that the court took in terms of looking at this statutory language that'll help inform us going forward, because we just had these rules and regulations on the books for far too long. I think it's held back investment in local news, local journalism, and particularly at this point in time, the big North Star for me as a media policy matter: ‘How do we re-empower those local TV stations, particularly relative to a lot of the national programming that's out there?’ ”

The FCC has issued a public notice asking for comments on the current ownership rules, with comments and replies to comments due in August.

WASHINGTON—In an important development in the battle over broadcast ownership regulations, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the Federal Communications Commission’s rules against a station group owning more than one of the top-four TV stations in audience share in a given market.

The St. Louis-based court also vacated an amendment to “Note 11” in the FCC rules that tightened how the top four stations are determined, but declined to undo rules governing radio stations and denied the petition for review of all other issues.

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC is required to review its broadcast ownership rules every four years and repeal or modify any that are no longer in the public interest. Following a December 2023 FCC order retaining existing regulations as part of its 2018 quadrennial review, the National Association of Broadcasters and a coalition of local broadcasters challenged the order, arguing that the FCC’s approach ignored the competitive pressures broadcasters face from digital platforms and failed to meet the statutory requirements for review.

The 8th Circuit ruling found that the FCC’s rationale for retaining the rules was “arbitrary and capricious,” “unsupported by the record” and relied on “outdated” or insufficient evidence. The court wrote that “in light of the evidence against the Top-Four Prohibition and in the absence of any record-supported reason for keeping the rule,” the Commission failed to justify its continued enforcement of that regulation.

The ruling comes at a time when broadcasters have been hopeful that the FCC might significantly revise or eliminate the ownership rules. FCC Chair Brendan Carr has vowed to eliminate rules that make it harder for broadcasters to fund local news and the agency has opened a docket calling for public comment on the rules.

In response to the ruling, Carr and the NAB applauded the decision.

“NAB is extremely pleased with the Eighth Circuit’s decision to vacate the previous FCC’s arbitrary and outdated top-four prohibition,” NAB president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt said. “This is a major step forward for local television broadcasters seeking to compete and thrive in a vastly transformed media marketplace.

“At the same time, we are disappointed that the court stopped short of addressing the decades-old radio ownership restrictions that defy economic reality and weaken broadcasters’ ability to compete, invest in local journalism and serve their communities,” he added. “Fortunately, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has long been a champion for empowering local stations, and we look forward to working with this FCC to modernize its local radio ownership rules and ensure local broadcasters can thrive in the communities they serve across the nation.”

When Carr was a commissioner, he opposed the 2023 FCC Order.

In response to the 8th Circuit ruling, Carr said: “For decades, the FCC’s approach to regulating the broadcast industry has failed to promote the public interest. 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.”

The FCC has approved some recent transactions allowing broadcasters to own more than one top-four station. In July, Gray and Scripps also have entered into station swaps that would require a waiver of the rule.

The full ruling is available here.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission has set deadlines for comments to a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to codify certain foreign ownership requirements and streamline its review processes for broadcast, common carrier and aeronautical radio licensees under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act.

The NPRM set deadlines for filing comments and reply comments at 30 and 60 days, respectively, after publication of a summary of the NPRM in the Federal Register. On June 23, the Office of the Federal Register published a summary of the NPRM, including the associated comment and reply comment dates. Accordingly, comments must be filed on or before July 23 and reply comments must be filed on or before Aug. 22.

The agency approved a NPRM to revise foreign ownership rules at its May Open Meeting in a move that it believes will further protect national security interests while reducing red tape. The NPRM does not change the 25% ownership cap for foreign ownership of broadcast stations.

In an April blog, FCC Chair Brendan Carr wrote that “not only are we moving quickly at the Commission, but efficiently too. Take the FCC’s foreign ownership rules. Over the years, those regulations have increased…[b]ut in many cases, the FCC never codified those foreign ownership regulations in our rules. Not very efficient! Unwritten rules only make it harder for entities to understand and navigate our requirements, they risk inconsistent outcomes, and they can needlessly raise costs. We therefore initiate a proceeding that looks at codifying our requirements while asking about eliminating any needless ones.”

In a statement after the FCC approved the NPRM in late May, Carr wrote that “the FCC is taking quick and early action to promote America’s national security. We just voted to close a loophole in our equipment authorization process. And we are adopting a proposal now that aligns with the age old adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

“For our national security strategy to succeed, we must identify risks before they can be exploited,” he continued. “But up to now, the FCC and relevant stakeholders have had limited visibility into the ways that foreign adversaries might exert control over the entities we regulate.

"Now, the FCC does collect foreign ownership information from regulated entities," he wrote. "But there are gaps in our information collection. Specifically, the FCC does not have a uniform approach for identifying foreign adversaries that may hold an interest in an FCC license or authorization. Nor has our approach taken into account the various ways that foreign adversaries can exercise control. I have long believed that the FCC should publish a list of every entity with an FCC authorization or license that has sufficiently concerning ties back to a foreign adversary…With today’s rulemaking, we are seeking comment on obtaining the information necessary for the FCC to publish a list of all regulated entities that are subject to the control of a foreign adversary. As we do so, we know that there are many different paths forward and the public’s input will prove critical to the Commission’s success.”

The full NPRM can be found here.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau has issued a public notice seeking comments on national broadcast ownership caps, a move that was immediately applauded by the NAB as an “important step towards modernizing a decades old rule that limits television broadcasters’ ability to compete in today’s media marketplace.”

As previously reported, FCC Chair Brendan Carr has been increasingly vocal about his willingness to deregulate broadcast ownership rules as a way to help station owners better compete against big tech companies and strengthen the market position of local stations versus the national broadcast networks.

The notice seeking public comment on ownership caps was issued one day after Olivia Trusty was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the second Republican FCC member. That will give Carr a 2-1 GOP majority on the commission.

In May, Carr said: “We have these arcane, artificial limits on how many TV stations any one company can own. But of course, that doesn’t apply to big tech. So you have, you know, relatively small TV station groups that are competing with Google and Facebook and others in the advertising part. So I want to ultimately empower those local stations and, frankly, constrain some of the power of those national programmers.”

In the public notice, the Media Bureau reopened comments on a 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking on national ownership caps that limit 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. 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).”

In response to the FCC’s announcement that it will refresh the record on the national cap, NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt said: “NAB thanks Chairman Carr for taking this important step towards modernizing a decades-old rule that limits television broadcasters’ ability to compete in today’s media marketplace. We appreciate Chairman Carr’s willingness to tackle this critical issue, which will allow us to better serve our communities with trusted news and information. We look forward to working together to bring outdated ownership rules into the 21st century and give local stations a fair chance to compete with Big Tech.”

WASHINGTON—During a lengthy interview at the Milken Institute, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr provided the clearest signal of his tenure that he would like to get rid of ownership rules and caps , in his view, are making it harder for local broadcast stations to compete with big tech and streamers.

During the interview, Carr once again attacked the broadcast networks for news bias and their efforts toward diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Of the FCC investigation into Disney’s DEI practices, Carr alleged that “the preliminary data indicate … they’re doing intentional discrimination, potentially among race and gender. That's true. That's a really big deal.”

Carr also repeated arguments that he wanted to shift the balance of power in affiliation agreements from the broadcast networks back to the affiliates, which he believes offer better, more unbiased news.

As part of that, he added that ownership reform “might be one way” to boost local broadcasters.

“What I would do is empower those local broadcasters [who] actually serve their local communities,” he said. “There's lots of ways we can do that. Looking at ownership reform might be one way to do it … We have these arcane, artificial limits on how many TV stations any one company can own. But of course, that doesn’t apply to big tech. So you have, you know, relatively small TV station groups that are competing with Google and Facebook and others in the advertising part. So I want to ultimately empower those local stations and, frankly, constrain some of the power of those national programmers.”

LAS VEGAS, Nev.—NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt laid out broadcasters’ policy agenda for the 119th Congress during a town hall at the NAB Show on Tuesday, April 8, with modernizing broadcast ownership rules topping a list of six items that also included NextGen TV.

“Broadcasters play a vital role in their communities, from reporting on dangerous weather events to covering local sports and news, and it is truly an honor to advocate on behalf of local stations in Washington,” said NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. “In the 119th Congress we are fighting for policies that allow local stations to continue this vital work, from calling on the FCC to modernize ownership regulations to keeping AM radio in cars to keep Americans safe.”

Speaking to a member audience at NAB Show, LeGeyt also announced the launch of a new NAB website that broadcasters can use to inform their advocacy efforts and guide conversations with policymakers.

The website outlines six key policy priorities:

• Modernizing Antiquated Broadcast Ownership Rules to Let Stations Compete
• Keeping AM Radio in Cars to Ensure Public Safety
• Supporting NEXTGEN TV to Protect our Critical Infrastructure
• Preventing Harmful Changes to Existing Advertising Tax Deductibility
• Opposing a New Performance Tax on Local Radio
• Protecting Broadcasters’ Investment in Local Content

Following a successful State Leadership Conference in March, where broadcasters from all 50 states met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act is supported by a filibuster-proof majority of the Senate and over 140 cosponsors in the House. In addition, NAB launched a campaign urging the FCC to modernize outdated broadcast ownership regulations.

Visit nab.org/policypriorities to learn more about the NAB's views on critical issues impacting local stations.

WASHINGTON—A large group of 73 members of the U.S. House of Representatives led by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) calling for immediate action to update what the lawmakers are calling "outdated ownership regulations" that hurt local TV and radio stations.

The House members backing the letter emphasized the need for rules that reflect today’s competitive media landscape, where local broadcasters face unprecedented challenges competing with less-regulated Big Tech platforms.

The letter was signed by members of both parties but signatories were heavily skewed towards Republicans, with 69 Republican members of the House and only 4 Democratic Party members signing the letter.

The letter argued that “existing broadcast ownership regulations…[that] originated in the 1940s” are badly in need of being modernized.

“While the FCC has made incremental adjustments over the decades, the fundamental ownership restrictions have remained largely unchanged since the 1990s, imposing undue constraints on broadcasters’ ability to innovate and invest in local content,” the letter asserted. “These regulations are a relic of an era when broadcasters were the only electronic media. Today, any one of the largest Big Tech platforms dwarfs the entire broadcast industry – yet they are held to no similar limitations on their reach. This imbalance places broadcasters at a severe disadvantage in competing for advertising dollars and audience engagement.”

The letter did not propose specific changes to ownership caps, which currently prohibit broadcast station groups from owning stations covering more than 39% of the country.

It did argue that existing rules make it harder for broadcasters to offer important local news and public safety information: “At a time when newspapers are battling to survive, broadcasters’ local engagement is more important than ever. When broadcasters cannot combine or expand operations, they struggle to maintain sufficient newsroom staff and invest in journalism. This increasing lack of access to local information leaves communities vulnerable to misinformation from unverified sources on social media.”

“Reforming outdated ownership rules is essential to ensuring that broadcasters remain viable, competitive, and capable of fulfilling their essential role in American democracy,” the letter concluded. “By modernizing these regulations, the FCC can empower broadcasters to better serve their communities, promote local journalism, and compete in the modern media marketplace. Updating these rules is not just an urgent economic necessity, it is a public service imperative.”

The letter comes at a time when broadcasters are hopeful that the FCC under the new Republican administration will be more open to loosening broadcast ownership rules.

The FCC has so far opened up an aggressive deregulatory campaign to remove excess red tape called "Delete, Delete, Delete." But it has also directly intervened in hiring practices by threatening investigations of companies like Comcast and Disney for DEI initiatives and signaled a willingness to directly regulate editorial content with "news distortion" investigations involving stations owned by CBS, ABC and NBC.

NAB’s recently launched a Modernize the Rules campaign to urge the FCC to overhaul broadcast ownership regulations that the NAB said unfairly limit broadcasters’ ability to grow, invest in local journalism and compete for talent, content and advertising revenue.

The NAB also applauded the letter. “America’s local TV and radio stations are facing a radically transformed media landscape where global tech giants operate without restriction while local stations remain shackled by decades-old rules,” said NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. “NAB is grateful to Rep. Hudson and his bipartisan colleagues for urging the FCC to bring its ownership regulations into the modern era. Quickly updating these rules is essential to preserving local journalism, strengthening public safety and ensuring that broadcasters can continue to serve the communities that rely on them every day.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The National Association of Broadcasters is once again urging the FCC to update what it calls an “antiquated broadcast regulatory regime” that “imperils the competitive viability of local television and radio stations.”

The “antiquated” rules regarding ownership caps and a host of other regulations could also force broadcasters to reduce investments in free local broadcast news and reduce the amount of free news and sports available to consumers, the NAB argued. The regulations also make it harder for broadcasters to provide newer innovative services like NextGen TV, aka ATSC 3.0.

“At some point the industry’s asymmetric burdens may well lead some broadcasters to conclude that the best competitive strategy may be a shift to offering audio and video content via unregulated platforms – and at a price to consumers,” the NAB argued.

The NAB made the comments in a June 6 filling after the FCC asked for comments for its biannual Communications Marketplace Report.

In the filing the NAB complained that “despite congressional intent and the total transformation of the audio and video marketplace since 1996 by digital technologies and the internet, the Commission has yet to address in any meaningful way its antiquated broadcast regulatory regime. From its ownership restrictions preventing necessary scale and discouraging investment, to its unwillingness to foster broadcast innovation, to its infatuation with paperwork and compliance burdens that serve to check political boxes more than the effective pursuit of important substantive goals, the FCC consistently refuses to consider how its regulatory approach imperils the competitive viability of local television and radio stations."

"Consequently, the Commission also fails to address, let alone answer, the fundamental question of how radio and TV broadcasters burdened by highly asymmetric regulations – and facing unprecedented competition for audiences and advertising revenues from much larger competitors – will be able to continue providing valued programming services, including news, increasingly expensive sports programming, weather, and emergency information, free to the public in local communities across the nation," the NAB continued. "Indeed, the Commission takes for granted that broadcasters must provide a service at their own expense but free to the public, even though it is a unique and enormous public service obligation: only radio and TV stations are required to provide their products directly to the public through local outlets for free.”

In the filing the NAB supplied extensive data showing that broadcasters now compete with much larger tech giants, with the largest broadcasting group Nexstar having a market cap of about $5.25 billion compared to Amazon with a market cap of $1.88 trillion and Alphabet with a $2.19 trillion market cap. It also stressed that less regulated streaming services dominated by these tech giants continue to siphon off viewers and ad dollars. 

“Data from leading industry analysts, including Nielsen, Edison, Borrell, and BIA, all confirm that local broadcast stations have lost significant audience share and advertising revenues to their audio, video, and advertising market competitors,” the NAB noted. “Edison Research concluded after its most recent annual surveys that internet access is nearly universal and that the smart device triumph is nearly total, resulting in an audio and video marketplace unrecognizable to consumers of traditional local media in the analog era. Streaming now dominates the video marketplace, outpacing both broadcast TV and cable, and AM/FM radio (OTA and streams combined) garners just over one-third of Americans’ time spent listening to audio sources.”

“These fundamental market and technological changes have necessarily and dramatically affected the competitive position of advertising-supported free OTA radio and TV stations,” the NAB said. “The Commission, however, still refuses to admit that these transformative changes should in any way impact its broadcast regulatory regime or even to recognize that regulation is not costless. Indeed, rather than considering the cumulative toll that all its existing broadcast rules impose, the FCC appears intent on increasing the harm caused by its asymmetric regulation of OTA broadcasting via a series of additional rulemakings and proposed rules uniquely burdening radio and TV stations, increasing compliance risk for recordkeeping rules with vanishingly small public benefit, and discouraging investment in the broadcast industry.”

As part of the overhaul of broadcast regulations, the NAB once again urged the FCC to reform ownership rules. 

“Reforming analog-era structural ownership rules will help broadcasters achieve reasonable scale and enable the industry to better attract vital investment,” the NAB said. “In addition, the FCC must take a hard look at regulatory policies that place speedbumps in the path of broadcast innovation but do not similarly burden the deployment of improved technologies by other participants in the communications marketplace. Rather than reflexively viewing broadcast innovation as a potential basis for more stringent regulation, the Commission should acknowledge that broadcasters need significant resources to invest in innovations such as ATSC 3.0, and actively seek ways to promote deployment of broadcast technologies enabling enhanced services to the public. Finally, the Commission must rethink its `we can regulate broadcasting so we must’ mindset and carefully consider how broadcast regulatory requirements in total burden the public’s free radio and TV services and discourage investment in their future.”

The full filing is available here.  

In response to an FCC ruling in March proposing a $1.2 million fine against Nexstar and a ruling that Mission Broadcasting sell WPIX, Nexstar has filled a response arguing that the FCC’s Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture  (NAL) “is unlawful and the proposed forfeiture, divestiture obligations, and other requirements must be canceled and the NAL vacated in its entirety.”

The filing came in response to a March 21 ruling by the FCC that imposed heavy fines on Nexstar and Mission Broadcasting for ownership violations. The FCC imposed fines on Nexstar of $1,224,790 and Mission $612,395 for the violations. It is also sought to remedy the ownership issues by having Mission either sell WPIX in New York to an independent third party that has no relationship to Nexstar or to have Nexstar buy WPIX and divest other stations so it is under the ownership cap.

The controversy dates back to the acquisition of the Tribune TV stations by Nexstar in 2018 and Nexstar's subsequent decision to sell WPIX to Mission Broadcasting to reduce its station ownership footprint to comply with FCC rules. The FCC approved ownership transfer and a local market agreement that allowed Nexstar to operate the station but in the March 21, 2024 NAL cited features of the Nexstar/WPIX relationship that indicated Nexstar is exercising too much control over WPIX during retransmission consent negotiations.

In response, Nexstar argued that the FCC would “deem unlawful and destroy commercial agreements between Nexstar and  Mission Broadcasting, Inc. that were expressly approved by the FCC under the prior  administration, and…force station divestitures by Nexstar and/or Mission in contravention of  existing law and precedent. The NAL’s analysis and penalties contradict existing FCC rules and authority,  contravene the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and violate  Nexstar’s constitutional rights in multiple respects.”

“Through the NAL, the Commission seeks to wield its enforcement authority in a myriad  of improper ways,” Nexstar’s lawyers contended in the filing. “It argues that Nexstar violated the Communications Act by performing the  express terms of agreements that the FCC previously reviewed and approved. It seeks to rewrite  FCC rules without a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding. It adopts new interpretations of FCC rules that are unsupported or even contradicted by precedent without prior notice or  reasoned explanation. It creates entirely new regulatory requirements without prior notice or due  process. It applies standards that are vague and unsupportable. To the extent that the  Commission now quarrels with the FCC rules on the books or the decisions of the past, it should  pursue those policy objectives through notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings that will allow all affected parties to be heard and ensure even-handed treatment across the industry. It  should not pursue those objectives through an inequitable enforcement proceeding that penalizes  Nexstar for relying on FCC approvals and following existing regulations and applicable law.” 

“At its core, the NAL seeks to undo FCC-approved agreements pursuant to which Nexstar,  Mission, and WPIX have been operating since 2020,” the filing stressed. “These agreements, which include a Local  Programming and Marketing Agreement (LPMA) and an agreement that provides Nexstar  with the option to acquire WPIX from Mission (Nexstar-Mission Option) (together, the  `WPIX Arrangement'), were reviewed and approved by the FCC in late 2020 as a part of  Mission’s acquisition of WPIX. Nonetheless, the NAL now finds that the very same LPMA  confers de facto control of WPIX to Nexstar.”

“Because the NAL is based on unlawful interpretations of Commission rules and  precedent, violates Nexstar’s constitutional rights, and otherwise runs afoul of the Administrative  Procedure Act and the Communications Act, it must be canceled and vacated in its entirety,” the filing concludes. 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In response to a FCC proposal to encourage local news by streamlining some regulations, Sinclair has filed comments with the FCC arguing that the FCC needs to address the economics of broadcast television by deregulating the industry in a number of key areas, including station ownership, the transition to ATSC 3.0 and rules governing vMVPDs. 

Sinclair made the filing, which states “local journalism in the United States is in crisis,” in response to an FCC proposal to encourage local journalism by speeding up license renewals for stations offering local news. 

“Sinclair does not oppose this proposal,” lawyers for the broadcast station group said. “But we respectfully submit that, if the Commission seeks to have a broader impact, the issue it must confront is one of economics, not unspecified regulatory carrots or sticks.”

“Accordingly, while we welcome the Commission’s efforts in this proceeding, we believe the Commission can and should do far more – and we hope the Commission will view this proceeding as a springboard rather than a stopping point,” the filing said. 

More specifically Sinclair argued for relaxed station ownership rules, increased FCC efforts to boost ATSC 3.0 deployments, changing rules regulating retransmission negotiations with vMVPDs and a more measured approach to enforcement. 

“We respectfully submit that the question of vMVPDs and broadcaster compensation for carriage will have orders of magnitude greater impact on local news over the coming years than any processing priority the Commission could conceivably propose,” the filing argued. 

Sinclair’s lawyers also argued that the FCC needs to work to accelerate the transition to ATSC 3.0. “We welcomed the Chairwoman’s announcement of the Future of Television Initiative designed to answer many of the questions associated with the transition,” the filing said. “We nevertheless continue to urge the Commission to move forward more quickly and not to take actions that might create uncertainty regarding the transition, such as novel steps to police patent licensing despite a lack of jurisdiction or expertise on this issue or raising unrealistic or unattainable barriers to the transition.”

In terms of ownership reform, Sinclair argued that “as an initial step, the Commission could simply commit to complying with its statutory obligation to complete the Quadrennial Review every four years and remove or update regulations no longer necessary in light of competition. We question how the Commission can rationalize restrictive and unchanging local ownership rules at a time when most markets are served by one or zero newspapers and broadcasters face intense and increasing competition for both viewers and advertisers in a video marketplace that any fair observer would agree has changed significantly over recent decades.”

More information is available in the original filing.  

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In the long-running regulatory saga of the FCC’s station ownership rules, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has issued a ruling giving the Federal Communications Commission 90 days to complete the 2018 quadrennial review of ownership rules or show cause why NAB’s petition for mandamus should not be granted.

The FCC had decided to go ahead with its 2022 Quadrennial Review of ownership rules even though it hadn’t completed the 2018 review. 

In December of 2022, FCC noted that the Commission has not yet adopted final rules in the 2018 Quadrennial Review, which has been delayed by extensive litigation, but stressed that the agency remains “cognizant of the statutory obligation to review the broadcast ownership rules every four years. Just as the previous (2018) quadrennial review was initiated in December of 2018, we seek to commence this subsequent (2022) review before the end of the 2022 calendar year….Accordingly, the Media Bureau finds that initiating the 2022 Quadrennial Review despite the pendency of the 2018 Quadrennial Review is appropriate in this instance.”

The NAB objected and in April filed suit with the Court of Appeals seeking to force the FCC to complete the 2018 review. 

In response to the ruling, NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt said that the “NAB applauds the Court for recognizing the vital importance of the FCC completing its long overdue 2018 quadrennial review. Today, broadcasters’ service to communities across the country is imperiled by the Commission's failure to modernize its decades-old media ownership rules. This ruling is an important step to compel a review that the record makes clear is necessary to allow local broadcasters to more fairly compete and deliver our trusted, locally-focused programming in a transformed media marketplace.”

“NAB looks forward to actively engaging with the FCC to forge a path forward and reinforce the essential service provided by free, local broadcast stations in communities across the country,” LeGeyt continued. 

The FCC should conclude its long-overdue, congressionally mandated quadrennial review of whether its media ownership regulations are necessary in the public interest, National Association of Broadcasters CEO Curtis LeGeyt told FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel earlier this month according to an FCC filing.

A politically tied FCC is unlikely to approve reregulation of broadcasters and so far there has been no movement on a Senate confirmation vote on Gigi Sohn, the Democratic nominee who would break that tie.

In a meeting with Rosenworcel, as well as fellow Democrat Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, LeGeyt and other NAB executives said it was past time to wind up the 2018 review. 

They said that some delay was understandable given that the Supreme Court had heard an appeal of the FCC's broadcast reg rollback, but now that that decision was "far back in the rearview mirror," the FCC needed to wrap it up.

NAB recognized that could be problematic without a full commission, so said it was urging Rosenworcel to complete the rulemaking ASAP after a full commission is seated, but that if that does not happen "in the near term," it needs to finish up anyway.

Back in June 2021, the FCC officially restored the deregulatory media ownership order adopted by the Republican majority under former chairman Ajit Pai, a decision reversed by an appeals court before that reversal was reversed by the Supreme Court. But the FCC had also sought comment to "update the public record" on media ownership for the overdue quadrennial review.

That could give a Democratic-controlled FCC the opening to re-regulate broadcasters if the record suggests to them that is necessary.

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

Those changes had been blocked by the Third Circuit, which remanded the decision back to the FCC for a better justification of the decision. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed that decision, holding that the decision was not arbitrary and capricious and that the FCC's conclusion that the rules were no longer in the public interest was reasonable.

Of course that would not prevent a Rosenworcel-led FCC from re-regulating broadcast ownership when there is a Democratic majority on the commission. 

WASHINGTON—The American Television Alliance (ATVA) has issued a statement applauding the FCC for proposing to fine Gray Television more than $500,000 for violating the commission’s local ownership rules.  

“We agree with the FCC that Gray’s manipulation of the local ownership rules was an egregious ‘evasion’ that warrants this fine,” stated ATVA spokesperson, Jessica Kendust. “We hope that today's action is only the beginning of a much closer look at these issues – including consideration of closing all of the other loopholes that broadcasters use to evade the rules.”

The FCC’s local ownership rules prohibit a single entity from owning more than one of the top-four rated stations in a single market, the ATVA said. 

According to the FCC, Gray purchased the assets of the CBS Anchorage affiliate and began carrying CBS programming on its second full power affiliate. The FCC called this an "evasion" of its local ownership rules, and it was right to do so, the ATVA asserted. 

“Gray’s attempt to cure its violation in Anchorage by then moving the CBS programming from its full power station to the low power station and another feed on its NBC station is just another workaround broadcasters employ to exploit the system,” stated Kendust. “We urge the FCC to close these additional loopholes.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASHINGTON—The National Association of Broadcasters this week recommended to the FCC that it adopt new ownership rules that would encourage broadcasters to offer “Broadcast Internet” services via ATSC 3.0 (aka NextGen TV).

The FCC is currently seeking input on revising legacy ownership rules that could hinder agreements between broadcasters and third parties to provide IP services over ATSC 3.0, which combines over-the-air broadcasting with IP. Broadcasters have been touting ATSC 3.0’s “one to many” broadcast concept as an efficient way to deliver IP services to consumers and businesses alike. The commission plans to vote on the proposal at its June meeting. 

In a letter to the FCC, NAB Associate General Counsel Patrick McFadden said, “Broadcasters are excited about the potential benefits of the new standard not only to provide the next generation of television service, but also to offer new and innovative services to benefit the American consumer.”

As the deployment of ATSC 3.0 gets underway, broadcasters are collaborating to allow multiple stations in the same market to broadcast ATSC 3.0 over one signal. Last week’s announcement of the deployment of ATSC 3.0 in Las Vegas, for example, involves four stations broadcasting from one antenna owned by Sinclair Broadcast. 

McFadden asked the commission to revise its proposal that removes “ambiguity” over whether or not the new rules would apply to such temporary simulcasting arrangements.  

“We note that, in its order authorizing the voluntary use of the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard, the Commission similarly stated it would not apply the broadcast ownership rules in any situation where airing an ATSC 3.0 signal or an ATSC 1.0 simulcast on a temporary host station’s facility would result in a potential violation of those rules,” McFadden said. “Pursuant to that order, such temporary simulcasting arrangements do not constitute a cognizable interest under our attribution rules.”

NAB also took issue with comments filed this week by the Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI) that recommended ancillary fees that broadcasters earn via services beyond the core ATSC 1.0 signal should be increased if broadcasters want to offer internet services over ATSC 3.0. 

“NAB urges the Commission not to accept the invitation of the Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI) to use the NPRM as an opportunity to increase regulatory burdens on broadcasters,” the association told the FCC. “OTI’s letter reflects its continued limited understanding of broadcasting technology generally and potential Broadcast Internet applications specifically. More generally, heightening regulatory requirements around this novel technology will only hamper innovation and hamstring broadcasters seeking to better serve their communities.”

WASHINGTON—MVPDs’ arguments that broadcasters have undue bargaining power when it comes to retransmission consent negotiations hold little water, according to the NAB in comments filed to the FCC. In addition, the organization said that the FCC should apply ownership limits to MVPDs’ multicast streams and to LPTV stations.

This all came in as a response to reply comments on the FCC’s request for input on the upcoming Communications Marketplace Report on the state of media competition that will be given to Congress.

PLUS: ATVA: Retrans Disputes Top Problems of Broadcast Competition

NAB said that the complaints from MVPDs regarding retransmission consent have been used multiple times, but still have no bearing on the need to reform local TV ownership rules.

“As NAB has explained innumerable times, MVPDs’ unhappiness about paying retransmission consent fees does not mean that TV broadcasters have any undue bargaining power over MVPDs; that those fees are, in any economic sense, too high; or that changes to FCC rules intended to enhance large pay-TV/broadband companies’ position at the negotiating table are in any way justified,” the NAB filing reads.

Rather, NAB makes the case that because of the coronavirus pandemic that has impacted broadcasters with a blow to the advertising market and local TV station revenue, the need for broadcasters to form competitively viable ownership structures so that they can continue to serve their local communities has been confirmed.

NAB had previously commented on the topic by saying that there should be an expansion of regulated competitors and deregulations on ownership rules.

For more information, read NAB’s full comments online. 

WASHINGTON—The National Association of Broadcasters said it is time for the FCC to recognize that broadcast competition—for both television and radio—has reached a new height and that actions must be taken to level the playing field.

This viewpoint comes from comments filed by the NAB to the 2020 Communications Marketplace Report. Specifically, it wants the FCC to adopt broad definitions of competitive markets and to reform local TV and radio ownership rules that are consistent with the current landscape.

It has been well reported that the trend for broadcast TV stations and traditional pay-TV providers has been the loss of viewers and subscribers to online, streaming options. From 2014-2019, NAB said that the number of OTT video services has increased 140%, and as of summer 2019, 74% of all U.S. households had either Netflix, Amazon Prime and/or Hulu. It said analysis shows that linear TV viewing has declined “in near-perfect correlation to Netflix’s rising penetration.”

The rise of digital devices that can display this content has also increased and exceeds the weekly reach of live + time-shifted television, per NAB.

This has also impacted the ad market, which has only been compounded by the current coronavirus pandemic, even as traditional TV has seen increased gains in audience during the pandemic.

“Given all these profound changes in the media and advertising markets, the FCC cannot maintain its woefully outdated view that broadcast radio stations compete only with other radio stations and that broadcast TV stations compete only with other TV stations,” the NAB said. “In a media landscape marked not by scarcity but by unprecedented abundance of platforms and content, all outlets—whether traditional or digital, audio or video—fight for consumers’ limited time and attention for advertisers’ limited dollars.”

NAB makes the case that for TV to remain meaningful in the digital marketplace, broadcasters must achieve greater economies of scale. To do so, NAB argues the FCC ownership restrictions and the Department of Justice merger review process should be modernized “to reflect competitive realities.”

Even as broadcasters serve the public during this current crisis as the most trusted source of news and critical information, COVID-19 is still going to raise the challenges of competing with digital companies for ad revenue.

As a result, “agency regulation and oversight must be updated to reflect competitive marketplace realities,” the NAB concluded.

The full NAB comments are available online. 

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—The FCC’s attempts to deregulate broadcast ownership have hit a setback, as the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has made a decision saying that the commission “did not adequately consider the effect its sweeping rule changes will have on ownership of broadcast media by women and racial minorities,” according to a report from TVT’s sister publication B&C.

The deregulation efforts that were approved by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and appealed to the Third Circuit would eliminate newspaper-broadcast and the radio-TV cross-ownership rules; allow dual station ownership in markets with fewer than eight independent voices after that duopoly an opportunity for ownership of two of the top four stations in a market on a case-by-case basis; eliminate attribution of joint sales agreement as ownership; and create a diversity incubator program, as well as other diversity mechanisms.

The decision, 2-1, was made by three judges of the Third Circuit and can now be appealed again to be heard either to the full court or directly to the Supreme Court.

“For more than 20 years, Congress has instructed the Federal Communications Commission to review its media ownership regulations and revise or repeal those rules that are no longer necessary,” said Chairman Pai in a statement following the decision. “But for the last 15 years, a majority of the same Third Circuit panel has taken that authority for themselves, blocking any attempt to modernize these regulations to match the obvious realities of the modern media marketplace. It’s become quite clear that there is no evidence or reasoning—newspapers going out of business, broadcast radio struggling, broadcast TV facing stiffer competition than ever—that will persuade them to change their minds.”

Citing a partial dissent given by Third Circuit Judge Anthony Scirica, Pai said that they will seek further review of the court’s decision.

The NAB’s Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of communications, gave another statement on the decision, backing up Chairman Pai’s efforts:

“NAB is disappointed with the appellate court’s 2-1 decision vacating the FCC’s measured decision reforming outdated media ownership rules. It’s shocking that the same panel of judges has supplanted Congress’s and an expert federal agency’s views with its own for more than 15 years.”

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who opposed the deregulations—calling them a “dismantling” of the values imposed by the rules—also commented on the court’s decision:

“The court rightly sent the FCC’s handiwork back to the agency because the FCC’s analysis was so ‘insubstantial.’ The FCC shouldn’t be in the business of cutting corners when it comes to honoring our long-held values when updating media ownership policies.”

WASHINGTON—“It’s a simple proposition: the media ownership regulations of 2017 should match the media marketplace of 2017,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in his statement on broadcast ownership rules, which were voted on and approved to be updated during the FCC’s Open Commission Meeting today, Nov. 16. “After too many years of cold shoulders and hot air, this agency finally drags its broadcast ownership rules into the digital age.”

The broadcast ownership rules were up for review as Congress requires the FCC to review them every four years to determine if they are in the public interest. Chief among the moves made today by the FCC in regards to ownership rules was the elimination of the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule and Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule. The Newspaper/Broadcast rule was originally adopted in 1975 and Pai stated that its elimination “will open the door to pro-competitive combinations that can strengthen local voices and enable both newspapers and broadcast stations to better serve their communities.”

The FCC also voted to eliminate the eight-voices test for local television ownership. The test required at least eight independently owned TV stations to remain in a market before any entity may own two television stations in that market. Pai claimed that this would help television stations thrive, especially in small- and mid-sized markets where there may not be enough advertising revenue to support eight competitive stations. The updated order will also permit exceptions to the prohibition on an entity owning two of the top four stations in a market if it can be shown that a particular transaction would be in the public interest. The national ownership cap and UHF discount were not included in this Quadrennial Review, but are expected to be considered in a separate proceeding later this year.

The easing of restrictions on television joint sales agreements were also approved, which Pai said essentially made it impossible for stations to enter into JSAs in most markets.

One addition the FCC made in regards to ownership rules is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on establishing a new incubator program that would see established broadcasters would help facilitate entry by new voices into the marketplace, with a specific eye toward expanding broadcast ownership diversity. The FCC will seek comments on how to implement and structure the program.

The official vote was three to two, with Pai, Commissioner O’Rielly and Commissioner Carr approving. Commissioner Clyburn and Commissioner Rosenworcel dissented.

During the meeting, Commissioner Clyburn voiced her objections on the new order when she said “Today will go down in history as a day the FCC abdicated its responsibility to uphold localism, diversity and competition.”