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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full text of the coalition letter is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full filing is available here.

Other filings on the topic can be accessed here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information is available on the AWARN website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The deadline for reply comments is Sept. 29.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fees will be due by the end of September.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW YORK—In the runup to the start of the 2026 season on Sept. 9, the National Football League has inked three major commercial agreements with sports betting operators.

DraftKings and FanDuel, who have been sports betting partners with the NFL since 2021, each signed a multi-year deal while Fanatics Betting and Gaming signed a separate multi-year agreement, expanding a relationship with the NFL that includes collectibles and official league merchandise.

“We are thrilled to have three world-class partners in the sports betting category,” said Renie Anderson, executive vice president and chief revenue officer at the NFL. “DraftKings, FanDuel and Fanatics share our vision for innovation and fan engagement, but most importantly, our commitment to protecting the integrity of the game. We look forward to navigating this next chapter in sports betting together.”

As part of these multi-year deals, all three partners will have the ability to leverage NFL marks within the sports betting category and promote online and retail sports betting. They will also have presence at NFL tentpole events such as the Super Bowl and NFL Draft, unique hospitality and VIP experiences and integrations across NFL-owned digital media properties. Finally, they will have access to real-time, official play-by-play statistics, proprietary Next Gen Stats and BetVision through Genius Sports, the league’s exclusive data distribution partner.

All three NFL partners agreed to adhere to the league’s core game integrity policies and will collaborate on intelligence sharing, advocacy efforts and responsible gambling initiatives. This includes working together to prohibit wagers the league finds objectionable, including bets tied to officiating and injuries, along with those that can be knowable in advance or easily manipulated by a single person.

In addition to sports betting, DraftKings will continue its partnership as the Official Daily Fantasy Sports Partner of the NFL, which began in 2019 and includes exclusive rights to NFL IP and marks. Fanatics will become an Official Online Casino Marketing Partner of the NFL.

Along with the announcement of the new deals, the league emphasized its focus on game integrity as the foundation of the NFL’s approach to legalized sports betting. The league’s comprehensive integrity program features collaboration with sports betting partners, policy education and enforcement, information sharing and monitoring for suspicious activity in coordination with law enforcement, regulators and third-party partners.

Genius Sports provides real-time monitoring of betting patterns to identify potential manipulation. Each club also has an assigned Integrity Representative—typically a retired FBI agent or senior law enforcement officer—to support these efforts.

All players, coaches, officials and staff are required to complete annual training on the league’s Gambling Policy and to sign and acknowledge the policy each year.

More information is available at media.nfl.com/LSB.

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

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

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

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

The Report and Order is available here.

WASHINGTON—Opponents of the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger who are working together as “The Block the Merger Coalition” have launched a public petition that thanks the 12 state attorneys general who sued to block the “dangerous” merger while calling on them to vigorously pursue their antitrust lawsuit against the deal.

That includes rejecting what the group calls empty concessions from Paramount before the March 2027 trial, it said.

The organizers behind noparamountconcessions.com argue that any unenforceable concessions proposed by the deal’s backers—Paramount CEO David Ellison and his father, Oracle co-founder and executive chairman Larry Ellison—in a back room are a losing proposition. They ask “state AGs to uphold the antitrust laws so workers in the entertainment industry, consumers and the general public get their day in court.”

The coalition includes Free Press, the Archival Producers Alliance, the American Economic Liberties Project, the Committee for the First Amendment, Common Cause, Democracy Defenders Action, the International Documentary Association, the Media and Democracy Project and Public Citizen.

The push comes the day after Iowa and Montana filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to throw out the antitrust lawsuit brought by 12 AGs.

“Plaintiffs, the State of Iowa and State of Montana, respectfully move this Court for leave to file the attached Bill of Complaint to stop a politicized enforcement action that seeks to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger,” the filing by the two Republican AGs said.

It also follows reports that Paramount has been attempting to negotiate an settlement in the lawsuit by offering various concessions.

“Enough with the Ellisons’ astroturf efforts to sabotage the attorneys general's case against this dangerous mega-merger,” Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron said. “Media deals of this scale can’t be salvaged with unenforceable pledges and empty promises. The serious antitrust concerns in this case can’t be resolved via backroom negotiations and corporate PR stunts, but must be litigated in a court of law. Any talk of concessions is just wishful thinking from desperate billionaire owners who know that their plan to seize control of our media endangers our democracy.”

Added Common Cause Senior Policy Director of Media and Technology Adnmrea Sawka Fiegl: “Paramount's request that state attorneys general post a $1.9 billion bond, after Paramount itself agreed to delay this deal, is outrageous and shows exactly why this merger deserves the scrutiny of a full trial. This merger would give one billionaire family outsized control over the news, entertainment and information Americans depend on while raising costs for consumers. Government decisions about media mergers must protect the public, not corporate interests. The attorneys general should hold firm and let a judge decide this case on the merits.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full ruling is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gomez also argued that the move was illegal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives would rightly be outraged.

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

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

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

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

We have seen versions of this movie before.

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

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

The lesson should have lasted longer than one generation.

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

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

That principle applies equally to Republicans and Democrats.

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

Compete.

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

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

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

That is capitalism.

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

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

But those legitimate responsibilities make restraint even more important.

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

That is precisely why conservatives should be especially careful.

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

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

Those are all consequences of freedom.

But government intimidation is not the answer.

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

Today the target may be a liberal comedian.

Tomorrow it could be a conservative broadcaster.

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

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

Compete with them. Outperform them. Or buy them.

Just don’t ask the government to silence them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Federal Communications Commission’s Enforcement Bureau has entered into a Consent Decree with Corridor Television that will see the broadcaster pay $27,000 to resolve an investigation into its failure to participate in nationwide tests of the Emergency Alert System and various violations of its EAS filing requirements.

The FCC is calling the payment to the U.S. Treasury a “voluntary contribution” rather than a fine and the payment is much less than the $369,190 the regulator had originally proposed. As part of the settlement, Corridor agreed to implement a compliance plan to avoid future violations.

Corridor is the licensee of TV station KCWX in Fredericksburg, Texas; 100% of Corridor’s voting interests are held by Global Information Technologies, Inc., a privately held company based in Texas, which is wholly owned by Saleem Tawil and Carmen Tawil.

The investigation stems from a complaint received by the FCC in August 17, 2021 that alleged the station misrepresented its handling and deployment of three Nationwide Tests of the EAS, and violated multiple Commission rules.

The Complaint also alleged that Corridor installed improper EAS equipment, which contributed to its failure to participate as required in the national EAS tests.

Following an investigation by the Bureau, on January 8, 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability, which proposed a total forfeiture of $369,190 for “Corridor’s willful and repeated violations.”

In response, Corridor provided evidence demonstrating that it lacks the ability to pay the forfeiture proposed in the NAL and provided an explanation for the stations’ violations.

That led to the negotiation of a consent decree that requires Corridor to “implement and maintain a Compliance Plan designed to ensure its future compliance with the EAS Rules” to “pay a voluntary contribution of $27,000 to the United States Treasury.”

The full Consent Decree is available here.

WASHINGTON—The Motion Picture Association and the Chinese tech giant ByteDance have reached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on a shared framework to protect intellectual property on generative AI video and image models like Seedance and Seedream, which is offered by TikTok, the TikTok USDS Joint Venture, CapCut, Dreamina and others.

ByteDance founded and is the owner of TikTok outside the U.S.; it currently owns 19.9% of the social media platform’s U.S. business. It launched Seedance 2.0 in February of 2026 and the first iterations of Seedream in 2025.

In February the MPA, which is backed by the U.S. studios and major streaming players, sent a cease and desist letter to ByteDance in connection with Seedream 5.0 Lite and Seedance 2.0.

That led to “constructive conversations” between ByteDance and the MPA, the two parties said.. More recently, the launches of Seedream 5.0 Pro and Seedance 2.5 have reflected improved IP protections.

“Today’s agreement illustrates our belief that copyright is a cornerstone of the film and television industry – and reinforces our commitment to protect creative content,” said MPA chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin. “For the past several months, we have had constructive engagement with ByteDance to implement meaningful guardrails on Seedance and Seedream, and this MOU reflects our shared determination to continue our work together to further fortify those guardrails.”

“ByteDance respects the intellectual property rights that underpin creative industries around the world, and we believe responsible innovation in AI goes hand in hand with meaningful protections for rightsholders,” said John Rogovin, general counsel, ByteDance. “We appreciate the productive engagement with the MPA and its members as we continue to strengthen safeguards across our generative AI services. This MOU establishes an important framework for continued collaboration as the technology evolves, across a variety of products and platforms.”

The MOU is an important step forward in establishing that IP can and should be protected in the generative AI space, and it formalizes meaningful progress in recent months to further strengthen safeguards on ByteDance’s platforms, the MPA said.

The MPA’s member studios are: Netflix, Paramount Pictures, Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios, Sony Pictures, Universal Studios, The Walt Disney Studios, and Warner Bros. Discovery.

WASHINGTON—A new Federal Communications Commission report shows that high-speed residential broadband is now more ubiquitous than ever before.

The study found that from June 2024 to June 2025, the number of Americans lacking access to 100/20 Mbps fixed terrestrial broadband service decreased by about 23%.

Over a two-year period, this reduction was approximately 43%. Today, 96.9% of Americans have access to a fixed terrestrial broadband service at 100/20 Mbps, the FCC reported.

The report also cited data showing increased competition. Twenty-three states now have more than 50% of locations served with fixed wireless at 100/20 Mbps, the FCC said.

“President Trump’s policies are delivering great results for Americans in communities all across the country,” Chairman Brendan Carr said in a statement. “The data show that speeds are up, prices are down, competition is stronger than before, and the digital divide has narrowed substantially. The FCC is putting policies in place that will further accelerate high-speed builds and extend U.S. leadership.”

The FCC voted Aug. 14 to adopt the agency’s annual Section 706 Report. Section 706 requires the FCC to report on “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” This year’s report is the first spanning the current Trump Administration.

Other key findings include:

• Over a two-year period, the percentage of rural Americans lacking access to 100/20 Mbps fixed terrestrial broadband service decreased by over 44%. Further, with the inclusion of satellite, 100/20 Mbps rural broadband deployment is nearly universally available in rural areas.
• The number of Americans lacking access to mobile 5G with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps declined by over 30% over a two-year period. Today, almost 95% of American homes and businesses are covered by 5G at 35/3 Mbps speeds.
• The number of competitive options available to Americans also continues to grow. As of June 2025, 77% of Americans have access to three or more fixed services at 100/20 Mbps, and 43.4% of Americans have access to three of more fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps.

The FCC also cited data from other sources showing that speeds are up, prices are down, and competition is stronger than before:

• Speeds are Up – Wireless download speeds increased by 51% in 2025. Average upload and download speeds for fixed wireless are up 36.9% and 25.1% respectively between late 2024 and early 2026, according to Ookla data. In rural areas, those numbers show upload and download speeds rose 39.8% and 28.7% respectively.
• Actual prices for wireless service have now fallen four times more during President Donald Trump’s first 18 months in office compared to the same time under President Joe Biden. Prices are declining across the board, with postpaid unlimited plans down 10% over the last year. Fixed prices for the most popular services are down 6% over the last year.
• The percentage of homes and businesses nationwide that have three or more service options with at least 100/20 speed increased 4.85% from December 2024 to December 2025.

More data and information is available here.

WASHINGTON—Americans for Tax Reform and other conservative leaning groups have told the Federal Communications Commission that the agency should not implement additional regulations governing the relationships between the big four broadcast networks and their affiliates.

The letter argued that private commercial negotiations are best left to market forces and warned that government intervention could "distort" media markets.

It also raised fears that future administration might use these precedents to investigate deals that are "politically inconvenient."

In a letter from 21 groups, the organizations applauded the FCC’s push to “reduce government regulation and interference in America’s thriving communications sector. From media and broadband to the space economy, your deregulatory agenda continues to remove barriers to investment, innovation, and competition.”

“It is in that spirit that we respectfully urge the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to avoid intervening, either directly or indirectly, in affiliation agreements freely negotiated between broadcast networks and local television station owners,” the groups explained, adding that the relationship between affiliates and broadcasters is best left to market dynamics.

“As many of our organizations have previously emphasized,” the letter noted, “broadcasters are perfectly capable of deciding whether and when to enter into or end an affiliation agreement with a network. The FCC should not substitute its own judgment for that of the market participants themselves.”

“We are therefore concerned by suggestions that affiliation changes could trigger heightened scrutiny for license renewals or lead to other regulatory consequences,” the organizations continued. “License renewal should not become a newfound tool for influencing lawful private negotiations or pressuring market participants to reach outcomes preferred by the government.”

That could, the groups, said would “influence negotiations and distort the market. Companies may reasonably feel compelled to avoid transactions that are lawful and economically sound because they fear inviting regulatory scrutiny.”

The letter also warned that “a precedent allowing the FCC to intervene in affiliation negotiations because it disagrees with the resulting market structure will not remain confined to the present Commission or the present set of companies. A future FCC under a different administration could use that same theory to investigate affiliation changes benefiting broadcasters whose content with which it disagrees, pressure networks to reconsider relationships with disfavored station groups, or threaten license consequences when private negotiations produce politically inconvenient results.”

NEW YORK—President Donald Trump’s Truth Social platform is facing a lawsuit that alleges the social media platform's plans to charge $100,000 per month for advance access to official government announcements on Truth Social violates the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.

The lawsuit was filed Aug. 12 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan by Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and The Intercept.

The plaintiffs—represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, the Public Integrity Project and Altshuler Berzon LLP—are asking the court to bar Trump and White House employees from carrying out this plan.

The Trump Media & Technology Group, which was launched by Trump in 2021, offers Truth Social. Since returning to office, Trump has used his Truth Social account as his primary means of communicating with the public and making official announcements, encompassing everything from agency appointments and firings to military actions and foreign policy.

Last month, the CEO of Truth Social’s parent company announced Truth API, a service that would provide investors early access to “market-moving” messages from the president and other officials on the platform for up to $100,000 per month. At the same time, its CEO announced the company would take steps to stop users from systematically gathering posts from the platform.

Truth API launched Aug. 1 and has already signed up 10 customers. Many of those customers are believed to be high-frequency traders who hope to capitalize on early notification of policies that might move markets, The Wall Street Journal has reported.

The lawsuit argues that granting preferential access to Trump’s public statements to paid subscribers violates the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans equal access to the president’s public announcements and the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from imposing extortionate or unreasonable conditions on the availability of government benefits.

“A president selling priority access to news he himself generates for the benefit of a private company he controls is so blatantly corrupt and unconstitutional that it would have been hard to even fathom just a few years ago,” FPF chief of advocacy Seth Stern said. “Trump's crooked scheme is particularly outrageous because, as documented by our Trump Anti-Press Social Media Tracker, he frequently uses his Truth Social account to berate journalists and even to announce his plans to sue them and criminally investigate them. Then, he makes them wait in line behind paying customers to find out about it unless they’re willing to subsidize the platform he uses to attack them. This brazen grift targets not only the markets but the First Amendment. It cannot stand."

Added The Intercept Chief Legan Officer David Bralow: “Nothing could be more antithetical to the free, independent press than the president charging for early access to his public announcements. Through this litigation, The Intercept and its journalists are proud to hold the line on a fundamental proposition: Public information belongs to the public.”

Beyond the alleged constitutional violations inherent in Truth API, the plaintiffs also argued that the scheme is a money-making opportunity for Trump. Trump owns the largest stake in Trump Media through The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which holds approximately 41.43% of Trump Media’s shares, collectively worth more than $1 billion. He is the sole beneficiary of the trust.

“President Trump trampling on the Constitution for the sake of his personal profiteering is nothing new, but this latest scheme is obscene,” said CREW chief counsel Nikhel Sus. “All Americans are entitled to timely access to their president’s public statements, not just those willing to pay the president’s company $100,000 a month. We are proud to represent our clients in their effort to end this corrupt and unconstitutional scheme.”

“President Trump’s attempt to monetize his public statements is about as blatant as a constitutional violation can get,” added Public Integrity Project CEO Brendan Ballou. “The president’s public statements are for the public, not a wealthy few. Our democracy depends on upholding the Constitution and enjoining Trump’s corrupt scheme.”

The lawsuit is available here.

Advocates for low power television stations in the U.S. have formally asked the FCC to allow them to voluntarily transmit 5G Broadcast as an alternative to ATSC 1.0 or 3.0.

In a petition filed with the commission this week by XGN/X1 Mobile and Tyche Media LLC, the proponents reiterate their advocacy of using the global 3GPP 5G Broadcast standard to replicate most current broadcast services rather than transitioning to ATSC 3.0.

Frank Copsidas, current chairman of the LPTV Broadcasters Association as well as the licensee of seven LPTV stations is leading the charge. Copsidas is also founder of XGN and X1 Mobile, which showed what they said was “the world’s first commercial 5G Broadcast smartphone” at MWC Congress in Barcelona earlier this year. Both are focused on deploying 5G Broadcast, with X1 Mobile operating in the U.S. and X1 Mobile in the U.S. and Ireland.

Tyche Media LLC is the licensee of Boston’s WCRN-LD, which is currently operating under an experimental STA for 5G Broadcast to conduct field tests and proof-of-concept demonstrations to collect critical real-world data supporting the technical feasibility and regulatory compliance of 5G Broadcast transmission by LPTV stations.

The petitioners proposed that LPTV stations use 5G Broadcast to maintain most current services, including at least one linear, free-to-air video stream at a minimum resolution of 720p. LPTV stations must also allocate an average of at least 50% of remaining channel capacity (and no less than 2 MHz) to public safety solutions (e.g., first-responder data, emergency alerts deliverable in under 0.5 seconds, and high-accuracy positioning).

It also proposed that stations eligible for mandatory carriage (must-carry) not adopt 5G Broadcast to avoid what they termed “burdening multichannel video programming distributors.”

In May, the LPTV Broadcasters Association sent a letter to Brendan Carr, asking the FCC Chairman to “fast track” a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to HC2 Broadcasting’s 2025 Petition for Rulemaking (MB Docket No. 25-168) and move expeditiously toward final rules. HC2—which owns 131 LPTV/Class A stations and four full-power stations—has been granted experimental licenses to allow two LPTV stations in Connecticut to test 5G Broadcast.

In its current filing, the petitioners reference this earlier filing with the FCC by HC2 Broadcasting and said the new petition is “substantially different” from HC2’s.

“HC2’s proposal contemplates exclusive datacasting with no continuing linear free-to-air obligation and no dedicated public-safety capacity,” the filing stated.. “This Petition, by contrast, requires a high-quality linear free-to-air stream and permanently reserves substantial bandwidth for public safety, including first-responder applications capable of saving lives. The difference is fundamental: one prioritizes private data delivery; the other prioritizes the public interest that broadcasters are required to serve.”

In addition to justifying the three-plus years of research, development and testing of 5G Broadcasting, the petitioners said their proposal would improve their ability to serve their audience instead of transitioning to ATSC 3.0, which they have criticized as too expensive and technologically unnecessary.

Their proposals would require a higher-quality free-to-air linear stream (minimum 720p) than the lower-resolution flexibility often associated with ATSC 3.0; guarantee a minimum average of 50% of remaining capacity (and never less than 2 MHz) for public safety solutions, and leverage a single worldwide 3GPP standard so that travelers and foreign visitors can receive emergency alerts on the same technology used nearly everywhere cellular service is available.

They also claimed that 5G Broadcast would allow LPTV operators to deliver those emergency alerts in under one-half second through efficient one-to-many broadcasting rather than unicast cellular delivery. They also “reject the notion that exclusive private datacasting without linear service or public-safety obligations constitutes the best and highest use of broadcast spectrum," adding that moving to 5G Broadcast would “enable rapid, low-cost deployment suited to low-power, low-tower LPTV facilities, without the private fee structures of ATSC 3.0.”

Petitioners reiterated their support for an alternative to ATSC 3.0.

“No mandate to ATSC 3.0 for LPTV,” the petition concluded. “Let broadcasters tailor their individual facilities to what best suits the local community and serves the best public interest.”

WASHINGTON—The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request with the Federal Communications Commission for records pertaining to the decision by the regulator to require select ABC-owned stations to renew their broadcast licenses early.

In the filing, the ACLU questioned the regulator’s motives for requiring the early renewal and argued that it was part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to chill news coverage that is critical of the administration.

“Although the FCC is purportedly requiring 8 ABC stations to renew their licenses early because they potentially violated the FCC’s rules against unlawful discrimination, the context and timing of the renewal calls into question the FCC’s true motives, the FOIA request said. “We believe that the FCC’s stated basis for requiring the early license renewal is mere pretext for punishing ABC because the Trump Administration disliked what ABC’s on-air talent had to say. We also believe the FCC and the Trump Administration are trying to send a message to other broadcasters that if they air content the Administration doesn’t like, they could face similar penalties.”

In the August 11 filing, the ACLU also referenced controversies over content on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! and “The View” that prompted President Trump and FCC Chair Brendan Carr to threaten to remove station licenses.

“The Trump FCC’s abuse of power to investigate, threaten, or regulate other broadcasters after President Trump has taken issue with their coverage also indicates that the FCC required Disney-owned ABC stations to renew their licenses early to punish them for their speech,” the ACLU noted. “For example, the FCC sent broadcasters a ‘reminder’ that their licenses were a “privilege” dependent on operating in the public interest.11 Prior to the ‘reminder’, the President had repeatedly called for the revocation of broadcast licenses for broadcasters that he thinks cover him unfairly.”

As previously reported, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), the Future of Free Speech, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University made similar arguments in an earlier filing urging the FCC to renew the ABC station licenses.

The filing also referred to FCC probes into NPR, PBS and CBS and Trump’s calls for other broadcasters to lose their licenses as examples of a larger "vendetta against broadcasters".

“Given the FCC’s apparent vendetta against broadcasters who say things the President doesn’t like – the public must know the truth about the FCC’s reasons for requiring 8 ABC stations to renew their broadcast licenses years early,” the ACLU argued. “To provide the American public with information about whether the FCC is using its authority to illegally retaliate against broadcasters’ speech, and attempting to chill protected speech, the ACLU seeks information about the FCC’s motivation for requiring ABC stations to renew their broadcast licenses early through this Request.”

The FOIA request seeks:

• The decision to require Disney-owned ABC stations to renew their broadcast licenses early.
• All communications to, from, or among FCC employees or Commissioners since January 20, 2025 discussing Disney, ABC, a Disney-owned ABC affiliate, any official of Disney or ABC, Jimmy Kimmel, or staff of Jimmy Kimmel Live!.
• All communications to, from, or among FCC employees or Commissioners since January 20, 2025 discussing complaints from President Trump, Melania Trump, JD Vance, Usha Vance, Susie Wiles, Dan Scavino, Stephen Miller, James Blair, Taylor Budowich, Vince Haley, David Warrington, Steven Cheung, Karoline Leavitt, Robin Colwell, Paige Willey or Ryan Baasch about what was said during an ABC broadcast or referencing a broadcast license.

The full filing is available here.

The Federal Communications Commission is warning consumers about scam calls and texts from fraudsters posing as agency commissioners or employees.

According to a consumer alert the FCC released Monday, recent schemes involve impersonators claiming a victim’s phone number is under investigation for criminal activity.

The impostors then demand immediate payment or personal financial information to resolve the supposed issue.

“Scammers have been contacting consumers and pretending to be me,” Commissioner Anna Gomez shared Monday on X. “No FCC commissioner will ever call or text asking for your personal information or demanding money.”

Gomez advocated for the scammers to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Consumers reported losing $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

Recipients of these calls are advised to hang up immediately, the FCC’s notice stated. If a call or text includes threats of violence or harm, consumers should also contact local law enforcement.

Government imposter scams remain among the most frequently reported fraud schemes, according to the notice. The commission added that it continues to take enforcement action against voice service providers that allow illegal imposter robocalls to traverse their networks.

Victims of imposter scams can file an online complaint with the FCC by selecting “phone” as the category and “unwanted calls/texts” as the issue.

(This article originally appeared in our sister publication, Radio World. You can access their extensive tech, business and regulatory coverage here.)

During second-quarter earnings calls with analysts, CEOs at several of the nation’s largest station groups were particularly bullish about the increased market demand for spectrum and the opportunities this creates for broadcasters as they transition to NextGen TV/ATSC 3.0.

“There's no question in my mind that we're sitting on a goldmine of spectrum, one that actually has proven to be increasing in value over time,” E.W. Scripps president and CEO Adam Symson told analysts Aug. 7. “And there's also no question that none of that value is reflected in our stock price. Scripps is one of the largest holders of broadcast spectrum. It was one of the reasons why we found the Ion acquisition so interesting. We are always looking at what the best and highest uses of our spectrum, and we'll continue to do so.”

This valuable spectrum was a major reason for Scripps' decision to turn Ion stations into sports duopolies, Symson added, but it could also be monetized through a Federal Communications Commission incentive auction.

“We’re always looking for the best and highest use of our spectrum,” he said. “Whether that’s turning stations that are Ion sticks into local stations in order to create high-margin duopolies, we will continue to look for the greatest opportunity. When there is an opportunity to monetize our spectrum, either through an incentive auction, as [FCC] Chairman Carr referenced [recently]...or otherwise, I am absolutely sure we will take full advantage to benefit our shareholders, our employees and the company's ability to continue to serve its mission.”

Those remarks followed comments by Sinclair president and CEO Chris Ripley during its Aug. 5 second-quarter earnings call touting the station group's lucrative spectrum assets.

Ripley noted that while the last auction in 2017 was a disappointment, there is now increased demand for spectrum, both from wireless carriers like T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon and from companies launching low-Earth-orbit satellite broadband services.

Putting this spectrum up for sale could occur, he added through a conventional auction, negotiated sales or “some sort of a lease arrangement to make capacity available.”

“So…the macro point is that this spectrum is very valuable,” he said. “I think it's easily at market, at auction, at a negotiated sale over $2.50 a megahertz-pop. I think it would be a floor valuation that I would see in any sort of transaction, which, by the way, implies $4.1 billion for Sinclair's portfolio in totality.

“It also underscores the necessity to fully roll out 3.0 and sunset 1.0,” Ripley stressed. “By sunsetting 1.0, we're able to free up a lot of spectrum, which could be used for additional programming and data casting, which we're working on at EdgeBeam.

EdgeBeam Wireless is the startup joint-venture company of E.W. Scripps, Gray Media, Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair focused on monetizing ATSC 3.0-based datacasting.

That means, Ripley added, “there is sort of a cost-benefit analysis that I think will go on once we sunset 1.0 and these commercial applications are available that EdgeBeam was working on. The industry will have to assess [if it] is it better to run those use cases over that spectrum and earn an annuity stream of income from it? Or is it better to transact and sell or at least to someone like Starlink.”

“I think all of those are possibilities, and it's really just an economic equation,” he concluded. “[I]t reinforces to me and the rest of the industry that we need to get the FCC to act and approve the NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] in front of them on 3.0 and sunset 1.0 in order to open up these types of opportunities.”

In its Aug. 7 earnings call, Kevin Latek, executive vice president, chief legal and development officer and secretary at Gray Media also stressed the importance of the ATSC 3.0 transition in helping broadcasters maximize the value of their spectrum.

“We’re seeing a bit of a repeat from 15 years ago when AT&T was making some very strong pushes to have the FCC reclaim some broadcast spectrum for the reverse auction, so they could be redeployed to mobile,” he noted.

While “the spectrum needs were maybe satiated for a number of years there,” he added that “now, we’re hearing a lot more about spectrum needs again. At the same time, the broadcast industry is as you know well, transitioning to 3.0…[I]f there is a strong push in demand for the spectrum, which seems to be increasingly likely, and we have this new technology that allows us to repack more easily…there could be some spectrum reallocation with another auction for broadcasters.”

This, he explained, would allow Gray “to accelerate the 3.0 transition, get all the stations on to 3.0. That would be a fantastic wind at our sail, to allow us to do a lot more with less spectrum allocated to our service and provide better use for some of that spectrum. And it also would, we believe, provide the federal government with a backup timing system” to the current GPS system using ATSC 3.0 broadcasters via the Broadcast Positioning System (BPS).

“So it seems at least at this point that there are a lot of very favorable and complementary pressures to move spectrum monetization forward in the medium term,” he concluded.

President Donald Trump has nominated Danielle Thumann Severs, who is a senior counsel to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, to serve on one of the two open seats on the commission.

The nomination was sent to the U.S. Senate on Friday, where it will go through a formal process for confirmation.

“Danielle is a dedicated public servant and has consistently delivered policy wins from bridging the digital divide and protecting consumers to advancing public safety,” Carr said on X, congratulating Thumann on her nomination.

“I am deeply humbled and honored by President Trump’s nomination to serve in this role,” Thumann Severs said on X. “I look forward to the Senate confirmation process and, if confirmed, to serving our country with dedication and gratitude.”

Thumann Severs advises Carr on matters before the Wireline Bureau, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, according to her FCC biography.

She rejoined then-Commissioner Carr’s office in August 2024 after working in the private sector on government relations matters for Crown Castle, according to her LinkedIn profile.

Thumann Severs previously served as legal advisor in Commissioner Carr’s office from March 2021 until July 2023. Before that, she worked as a communications attorney in the Washington, D.C. office of Wilkinson Barker Knauer.

In 2016, she earned her J.D. from the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, where she was associate editor of the Law Review.

Thumann Severs received her bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia in 2013, according to her LinkedIn profile.

Implications

The FCC requires a quorum of three commissioners to conduct commission business, according to the Communications Act. That’s how it has been operating since Olivia Trusty, a Republican, was confirmed by the Senate last year.

The quorum does not have to include members of both political parties. However, the statute limits the commission to no more than three commissioners from the same political party.

“Serving on this commission is one of the most rewarding jobs in government,” Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat commissioner, said in congratulating Thumann Severs on X. “I look forward to continuing our work together, hopefully soon with a full commission of five, the way this agency was built to operate.”

In response to the nomination, NAB president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt also congratulated her.

“NAB congratulates Danielle Thumann Severs on her nomination to the FCC," LeGeyt said in a statement. "Danielle is a dedicated public servant who is well regarded across all sectors of the communications bar. Her extensive experience at the Commission and deep understanding of communications policy will serve her well in this important role. We look forward to working with her throughout the confirmation process and, if confirmed, as a commissioner.”

We’ll update this story with more information as it is warranted.

[This article originally appeared in our sister publication Radio World. You can access their extensive tech, business and regulatory coverage here.]

WASHINGTON—Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr has appointed Keelin Ferris as Legal Advisor in the Office of the Chairman.

Following Callie Coker’s move into the private sector earlier this summer, Ferris will join the Office to focus on matters before the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

“The FCC works day in and day out on issues ranging from emergency alerts to protecting consumers from scams callers, from disaster recovery to modernizing our communications networks,” Carr said. “Keelin brings her talents and work ethic to the FCC to help us do this critical work for the American people – and it doesn’t hurt that she’s a graduate such an esteemed law school. I am happy to welcome her to the great FCC workforce.”

Prior to joining the FCC, Ms. Ferris was an associate at a creditor’s rights law firm. She earned her Juris Doctorate from Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law where she was the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Law and Technology and obtained a Certificate in Data Privacy and Communications from the Law and Technology Institute. She received her bachelor’s degree in political science and data science from American University where she played Division 1 soccer.

SACRAMENTO—A sternly worded ruling from a federal judge in California has found that Nexstar violated a preliminary injunction pausing completion of its acquisition of Tegna. The judge also ordered the station group to remove its employees from Tegna’s board of directors.

“Defendants cannot convincingly argue that having Nexstar executives serve on Tegna’s Board complies with the preliminary injunction,” ruled Judge Troy Nunley in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. “Defendants’ hyper-technical reading that the Order does not contain a similar prohibition on Nexstar employees or officers serving as Tegna directors is entirely disingenuous — especially given that the Order refers to officers because that is how Nexstar worded its modification request. It is clearly the spirit of the preliminary injunction that Nexstar executives would be prohibited from serving as not just Tegna officers, but Tegna directors as well. It is shocking that Defendants think installing a Board of Directors comprised primarily of Nexstar executives would not create influence over Tegna management. This undermines Tegna as an independent entity and violates the preliminary injunction.”

Judge Nunley in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is presiding over an antitrust case brought against the $6.2 billion Nextstar/Tegna deal by by DirecTV, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, State of Oregon, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia.

In the August 5 order, which became publicly available on August 6, Judge Nunley also required that Nexstar must reconstitute Tegna's board to exclude Nexstar employees. Within 10 days, Nexstar must also file a status report identifying its actions to ensure compliance with Judge Nunley’s preliminary injunction and within 7 days, Nexstar must comply with the plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery requests regarding compliance.

In the future, Nunley also ruled that Nexstar must provide monthly financial and other reports, as requested by plaintiffs to ensure compliance with the preliminary injunction and that within 14 days, Nexstar and plaintiffs must jointly file a stipulation and proposed order appointing a Special Master to oversee compliance with the preliminary injunction.

The Judge also admonished Nexstar for not notifying the court that it had appointed Nexstar executives to the board.

“Through the instant motion, the Court has learned for the first time that, on the very day the motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) was filed, three Nexstar officials were appointed to TEGNA’s Board,” the Judge complained. “Yet, Defendants never disclosed this material information to the Court — not in briefing on the TRO, not in their TRO compliance report, not in seeking modification of the TRO, not during the preliminary injunction hearing, nor in the months following the preliminary injunction. Defendants repeatedly failed to disclose material information to this Court, declined to seek Court guidance or relief, and then publicly declared that the Court had “approved” their actions.”

In response to the ruling, Nexstar issued a statement saying "We will comply with the Court’s order, including its requirements regarding TEGNA’s Board and the compliance process going forward. We remain focused on defending the transaction on the merits and strengthening local broadcasting for communities across America.”

WASHINGTON—In a landmark vote likely to encourage a wave of deals in the broadcast business, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change TV-station ownership rules to allow it to approve mergers that exceed its national audience-reach caps on a case-by-case basis if the transactions are deemed “in the public interest.”

The 2-1 party-line vote, with Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez dissenting, was applauded by broadcasters who have lobbied for decades to end the caps. It is likely, however, to face lengthy legal challenges from opponents who argue the ownership limits can only be changed by Congress.

Shortly after the vote, the public-interest group Free Press announced plans to file a lawsuit against the FCC, calling the order an “unlawful power grab” because the caps were established by law and only Congress has the authority to change them.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who proposed the changes as a way to protect local news and help TV stations better compete in a media landscape dominated by big tech and large streamers like Netflix, stressed the importance of localism and the need to strengthen the economics of local news as the prime reasons for approving the changes.

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

Carr also stressed that the order would replace a “blunt instrument” of a rule capping any station group’s reach at 39% of the overall U.S. television audience with a nuanced, case-by-case approach.

“Maybe a deal that exceeds a 39% cap is a good one,” Carr said. “Maybe it’s a bad one. Today's decision lets the parties make their case, allows all stakeholders to be heard, ensures that the agency will decide, consistent with our public-interest review. We’re replacing a blunt instrument with a much more granular case-by-case approach.”

He also argued that “the FCC's legal authority to modify the national cap is also clear. The D.C. Circuit has already rejected the argument that Congress’s decision to pass a statute directing the agency to set the cap at a specific percentage prevents the FCC from later modifying the cap. The court stated that Congress's statutory instruction to the Commission to set the cap at a specific percentage determined, quote, only the starting point from which the Commission was to assess the need for further change.”

“The FCC has the authority to modify the cap as we do today, and it is the right policy answer to, if you care about the future of trusted local news,” he concluded. “It's time to restore balance to the broadcast airwaves. Repealing the national cap will provide essential relief for local broadcasters by restoring a healthy counterbalance to the growing leverage and power of national programmers. Increased scale could enable broadcasters to attract the capital and advertising revenue needed to sustain and produce trusted community-focused news and programming. We should learn from our mistake with local newspaper industry, and we should not let the same thing happen to local broadcast TV industry.”

As expected, Gomez opposed the order, arguing that “today's decision to eliminate the 39% national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and longstanding broadcasting policy. Congress set this cap in federal law, and only Congress can change it. I cannot support an action that so plainly violates the law and exceeds the Commission's authority while simultaneously overlooking the real-world consequences for the public we serve. The national cap matters, and Congress, not this Commission, controls its fate. Today's action undermines our core public interest principles of localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition, while failing to consider or to address the interconnected rules, market realities, and economic pressures that define today's media ecosystem.”

Gomez also cited a number of Republicans, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who helped pass legislation that included the 39% cap, who have argued that only Congress can change the cap.

In her comments before casting the second vote need to pass the proposal, Commissioner Olivia Trusty said: “Today’s vote recognizes that the media marketplace has changed dramatically, while many of our rules have not. When the national broadcast television ownership rule was last meaningfully updated, Netflix had not yet begun its streaming service. YouTube did not exist, and appointment television was still very much the norm. With many American families planning their evenings around linear broadcast schedules, now over two decades later, audiences have shifted from scheduled broadcasts to on-demand viewing, with millions opting for the convenience of near-endless streaming libraries. The data confirm these trends. Today, streaming viewership surpasses the combined share of broadcast and cable, and is more than double that of broadcast television alone. These changes have fundamentally altered the competitive landscape for local broadcasters.”

That means the caps are no longer “in the public interest” and needs to be repealed, she said.

The FCC proposal adopting “a case-by-case licensing approach is particularly appropriate, rather than relying on a rigid nationwide ownership cap, the Commission can evaluate each proposed transaction on its individual merits, considering specific competitive effects, local market conditions, and public interest benefits presented by the record,” she added. “That approach is firmly grounded in long-standing Commission practice and well-established principles of administrative law.”

In a statement, NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt applauded the move, saying “[t]he FCC’s decision to eliminate the outdated national television ownership cap marks a generational step toward strengthening local stations and ensuring they can compete in today’s media marketplace. We applaud Chairman Carr and the Commission for recognizing that rules adopted decades ago should not constrain local broadcasters’ ability to invest in journalism, innovation and service to their communities. Today the FCC helped level the playing field and strengthen local stations’ ability to deliver the trusted news and emergency information millions of Americans rely on.”

The American Television Alliance (ATVA), which is backed by the pay TV industry, released a statement condemning the move.

“The FCC’s decision to eliminate the national broadcast ownership cap is a serious setback for American consumers and local communities,” said ATVA Spokesman Hunter Wilson. “Congress established the 39% national ownership cap in 2004 to protect localism, viewpoint diversity and consumer choice. By eliminating this safeguard, the FCC has ignored Congressional intent and opened the door to unchecked ‘Big Broadcast’ consolidation that will drive up costs for viewers and reduce local news programming.”

In a statement, Nexstar, which got FCC approval for its acquisition of Tegna despite being over the cap, said the "FCC's decision to eliminate the broadcast ownership cap is a welcome, necessary and long-overdue recognition of today’s competitive landscape, which is dominated by legacy Big Media and Big Tech. For too long, local broadcasters were handcuffed from reaching the scale they needed to compete on a more level playing field by outdated federal rules that didn’t apply to the largest and most powerful companies like Google’s YouTube, Meta’s Instagram, or Netflix. Modernizing these rules will help ensure broadcasters can continue investing in local journalism and providing the free, trusted news and information that communities across America rely on every day."

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission announced the return of $881 million in unused funds from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund, known as the “Repack,” marking a significant milestone in the successful conclusion of the first-ever spectrum Incentive Auction.

Initiated on April 13, 2017, the Incentive Auction repurposed 84 megahertz of low-band broadcast spectrum for commercial and unlicensed wireless use, generating $19.3 billion in net winning bids.

The broadcast incentive auction was made up of two separate but interdependent auctions. One was a reverse auction, which determined the price at which broadcasters could voluntarily relinquish their spectrum usage rights; the second was a forward auction, which determined the price companies were willing to pay for flexible use wireless licenses.

As part of the the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and the Reimbursement Expansion Act of 2018 $2.75 billion was allocated by Congress to reimburse broadcasters and other entities for costs incurred due to involuntary channel reassignments.

The Fund supported thousands of broadcasters through licensing, construction, and equipment removal efforts, ensuring a smooth transition to new channels.

“In support of the Trump Administration’s efforts to seek out government waste, we took a hard look at money sitting in our agency with an eye to limiting government spending and reducing wasteful programs,” FCC Chair Carr said in a statement. “As we come to the end of the Fiscal Year, we found the time was ripe to ‘clean house’ and ensure money does not sit languishing at the agency level when it can be given back to the U.S. Treasury for the financial benefits of the Nation.”

WASHINGTON—In the runup to the Federal Communications Commission’s planned Aug. 6 vote to relax station-ownership rules, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has published an opinion piece arguing only Congress can change those rules.

In an article published on website The Daily Wire, the former Texas congressman described how Congress ended up putting the 39% ownership cap into the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act and his important role in attaching that provision to the legislation.

That history is important because that provision has already been the focus of arguments over the FCC’s recent proposal to change station ownership rules. While FCC Chair Brendan Carr and the National Association of Broadcasters have asserted the agency’s authority to change the rules, opponents like FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez and others have cited that provision as proof only Congress can change the rules.

In the article, DeLay comes down firmly on the side of congressional authority, arguing that regulatory agencies can’t modify laws created by Congress.

“I am a Republican,” he concluded. “I support deregulation and the Trump administration. But my ultimate loyalty rests with the Constitution, which gives certain prerogatives to Congress. Regulatory agencies cannot defy or modify laws enacted by Congress. If Chairman Carr wants to raise the statutory cap, he should ask Congress to pass a law giving him authority to do that.”

DeLay represented Texas’s 22nd Congressional District from 1985 until 2006 and served as House majority leader from 2003 to 2005.

WASHINGTON—Following failed retransmission consent negotiations that led to Deltavision Media's WSYT Fox affiliate in Syracuse N.Y. being dropped from Verizon’s programming lineup, the pay TV-backed group, American Television Alliance (ATVA), has accused Deltavision of demanding an “exorbitant rate hike – one of the steepest Verizon has ever seen” in the talks.

As previously reported, the contract between the two companies expired in June. They then agreed to extend talks until July 30 but no agreement was reached and the Deltavision stations are currently blacked out in the market on Verizon.

In a statement Verizon said that “our contract with Deltavision Media, LLC expired on July 30, 2026. Deltavision owns and operates WSYT in Syracuse, NY (FOX, MyNetwork, COZI TV, Dabl channels). We haven’t reached a new agreement with Deltavision, so we temporarily lack the rights to broadcast their channels. We share your frustration. We are working hard to reach a fair deal, but Deltavision is demanding extreme price increases that would unreasonably raise your bill…We appreciate your patience and support as we continue to negotiate reasonable pricing on your behalf, and hope Deltavision will restore its channels to our lineup soon.”

TV Tech has reached out to WSYT and will add their response when we receive one.

“Deltavision Media has chosen a stunning debut in the broadcasting business: benching nearly 20,000 consumers to demand an unprecedented retrans rate hike,” said ATVA spokesman Hunter Wilson. “This is exactly the kind of marketplace abuse that underscores the need for retransmission consent reform. Consumers should not be used as leverage chips in fee disputes – especially when the stakes include access to critical local news coverage.”

ATVA has been aggressively lobbying for changes in the rules governing retransmission consent negotiations and has also been a vocal opponent of changing ownership caps for station groups, arguing that larger more powerful broadcast station groups would force consumers to pay more for programming.

WASHINGTON—In a new filing, the ABC-owned stations continued their blistering critique of the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to order eight stations to undergo an early license renewal process.

In a July 29 filing, the station group blasted the agency for attempting to censor news coverage critical of the Trump administration and for being part of a larger effort by the administration to create “a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely”

In the filing, ABC calls on the FCC to “deny the Petitions to Deny, or alternatively, dismiss these early renewal proceedings as untimely and unwarranted.”

The filing also noted widespread public support for the stations, with around 95% of 153,318 comments filed backing the stations. Those included approximately 375 community organizations supporting the license renewals, and 236 elected officials in 81 letters of support.

The lawyers signing the July 29 filing also indicated that Disney continues to bulk up its legal team as it prepares to take the issue to the courts if the FCC takes action against the stations.

Beth Wilkinson as a signatory in this filing alongside Paul Clement and Jennifer Tatel. The legal team is led by Horacio Gutierrez, senior executive vice president, chief legal and global affairs officer of The Walt Disney Company.

“For the first time in history, the Federal Communications Commission has ordered an entire group of local television stations commonly owned with a broadcast network to undergo simultaneous license renewal proceedings well before their current licenses expire,” the filing complained. “That makes these proceedings extraordinary and unprecedented. There is no question why the Commission is singling out these eight stations: Each is owned by ABC, and the Administration has openly and repeatedly called for the revocation of ABC’s licenses, because it dislikes the content and viewpoints expressed on ABC network programs.”

The filing also stressed that the “outpouring of support for the Stations has been unprecedented for a license renewal proceeding [with]...over 95% support [for] the Stations” and noted that more than 275 community organizations and advocacy groups have filed in support of ABC’s broadcast license renewals or urging the FCC to preserve the routine process, compared to around five or six groups opposing the renewals.

The filing also devoted considerable space showing that “these Stations have established deep connections with their local communities—New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, San Francisco, Raleigh-Durham [N.C.] and Fresno [Calif.]—and serve millions of viewers with award-winning original journalism, life-saving coverage during emergencies, local news stories, and locally tailored programming…Seven of the eight Stations rank first in viewership in their local markets for local news, and WABC has consistently been the most-watched local television station in the country.”

It also complained that the early license renewal is part of an effort by the FCC to crack down on content critical of the Trump Administration.

“[T]he FCC has spent the last 18 months searching for some pretext for revoking the Stations’ licenses,” it said. “The Commission has found none, because the Stations easily meet the standard for license renewal—which under the law means that the Commission cannot revoke their licenses or order a hearing on their renewal applications.”

“The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the Administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price,” the filing said. “Across the government, regulatory and contracting carrots and sticks have been trained on other disfavored speakers. The tools vary; the objective does not: a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely.”

It also stressed that denying the licenses for violations of FCC rules is an “extreme sanction.”

“Even if any violation were ever substantiated, the Commission has a graduated set of well-established remedies far short of the corporate death penalty of license non-renewal,” the stations complained. “That the agency reached first for the most extreme sanction in its arsenal, before making any finding at all, reveals its true objective: to chill not only ABC, but every broadcaster watching.”

In separate comments, Demciratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez also noted the widespread public support for the stations. As previously reported, more than 150,000 comments were received in the docket, with more than 100,000 in the last 30 days.

“When given the chance to weigh in on whether to allow the FCC to continue its campaign of censorship and control, the American public showed up in a big way, and the vast majority who spoke up delivered the same message," Gomez said. "They believe in the value of their local news, they trust those who cover their communities, and they understand that the FCC has no business deciding who is a journalist and what counts as real news. A small number of partisan voices tried to hijack this process into a referendum on a network they dislike, but the public refuses to let local stations become collateral damage in the FCC's political games. The FCC has no authority to police the ideological balance of the airwaves, and no matter what this Commission does next, the record now makes clear that this was never a genuine search for the public interest.”

WASHINGTON—The National Association of Broadcasters has filed comments rebutting arguments made by a variety of groups who have urged the FCC not to renew the broadcast licenses of eight ABC-owned stations.

The filing stressed that denying the ABC-owned stations their licenses would violate First Amendment rights, potentially censor news coverage and threaten the financial future of the broadcast industry.

NAB's filing was made in response to "petitions to deny" filed by outside organizations seeking to block the license renewals of ABC's eight owned-and-operated television stations

FCC Chair Brendan Carr has repeatedly said that the FCC would like to strengthen the financial stability of local broadcasters so they can expand their local news coverage. He has also regularly cited that goal in announcing FCC initiatives relating to broadcast sports rights, the power of broadcast networks over affiliates and the need to end ownership caps on station groups.

“Contrary to many renewal opponents’ claims, [the station renewal process]...is not designed to be an open-ended vehicle for reviewing every aspect of a licensee’s or its corporate affiliates’ businesses, resolving claims committed to other agencies and courts, or second-guessing constitutionally protected editorial decisions,” the NAB complained. “The filings opposing renewal of the ABC stations’ licenses stray well beyond these statutory boundaries. They invite the Commission to evaluate whether and how the stations covered news and public affairs, which is precisely the type of editorial judgment protected by the First Amendment and Section 326’s prohibition against censorship. Yet none of the filers makes the prima facie showing required to establish that any programming aired by the stations violated the Communications Act, the FCC’s rules, or the stations’ public interest obligations.”

“The Commission expressly limits its consideration of non-FCC misconduct to four specific areas of adjudicated conduct, none of which are implicated by the renewal opponents,” the NAB added. “Additionally, Section 309(k)(1) directs the Commission to evaluate the performance of each station during its license term – not unrelated activities involving a station owner’s theme parks, film and television studios, streaming platforms, or other non-station operations. Allowing such allegations to influence the renewal determination would disregard the statutory text and established Commission precedent and would transform a focused review of station performance into a wide-ranging investigation of an entire corporate enterprise, outside the FCC’s jurisdiction. This is exactly what the Commission wanted to avoid when denying challenges to FOX 29 Philadelphia, WTXF-TV’s renewal application just two years ago.”

“Importantly, the uncertainty engendered by use of early license renewals will inevitably discourage investment in the broadcast industry,” the filing also stressed.

“Broadcasters already struggle to obtain needed investment capital for a variety of reasons, including their lack of tangible, physical collateral, given that their primary assets are government licenses that must be periodically renewed. Even a limited number of early license call-ins will appear to investors and lenders as undermining the stability of those broadcast industry assets necessary for all stations to remain functioning businesses…No license had been called for early renewal since 1972, demonstrating that this procedure is unnecessary to ensure effective enforcement of and broadcaster compliance with FCC rules. For these reasons, the FCC should reconsider its use of the rule in this instance and consider eliminating the rule altogether.”

“In short, NAB urges the Commission to apply existing FCC precedent and the governing constitutional and statutory limits and to focus the proceeding on the question Congress made dispositive: whether each station served the viewing public in its community over the term of its license,” the NAB concluded.

The full filing is available here.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commissions’ controversial decision to order an early review of broadcast stations licenses owned by Disney’s ABC broadcast network has now attracted more than 150,000 comments, with more than 100,000 being received in the last 30 days.

At 1 p.m. ET, July 29, 151,523 comments had been received, with 100,801 received in the 30 days before July 29.

That made proceeding number 26-131 by far the most active docket in the FCC’s electronic filing system during the last 30 days.

The second most active proceeding in the last 30 days was the FCC's probe into whether ABC’s “The View” talk show counted as a Bona Fide News Interview Program and thus is exempt from equal time rules. This proceeding, 26-124, has attracted 78,720 comments with 19,053 received in the last 30 days.

By way of contrast, the third most active docket in the last 30 days had only 385 comments.

A large number of comments in the license renewal proceeding were in favor of renewing the licenses, as were the comments relating to “The View.”

The unusually high volume of comments, something not seen since the 21.7 million comments filed with the FCC during the controversy over net neutrality, was largely triggered by ABC's decision to air ads on "The View" urging viewers to defend the program and the stations.

Filings by the NAB, the NRB and other broadcasters have generally been in favor of the ABC station renewals and opposed to the early renewal process. A number of former high-level FCC officials have also attacked the FCC's order triggering an early renewal investigation.

While a host of progressive groups have weighed in on the issue by attacking the FCC for attempting to censor content critical of the Trump administration, some conservative groups have also been critical.

Recently, Fox News reported that “Center for Individual Freedom, Citizens Against Government Waste and Americans for Tax Reform, penned a letter to [FCC Chair] Carr…urging the chairman to avoid setting a precedent that could hurt non-liberal organizations in the future.”

"Our concern is that establishing precedents of non-routine renewal creates a powerful lever that future FCCs — including ones hostile to conservative, religious, or otherwise disfavored broadcasters — would be all too willing to pull," the letter said according to Fox News.

WASHINGTON—In the runup to a August 7 vote on a Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to change ownership rules for broadcast station groups, the pay TV-backed American Television Alliance (ATVA) met with commissioners and staff to oppose the changes.

In a July 27 meeting with Marcus Maher of Commissioner Olivia Trusty’s office and a July 24 meeting with Deena Shetler of Commissioner Anna Gomez’s office, ATVA raised “significant concerns” about the proposal, saying it would increase “retransmission consent fees” and cause “higher consumer bills”.

In a letter describing the meetings, Michael Nilsson, counsel to the ATVA “pointed out inconsistencies between the Draft Order, which directs parties to raise retransmission consent issues in individual transactions, and the Media Bureau’s decisions in individual transactions, which direct parties to instead raise such issues in rulemakings of general applicability.”

The group also objected “to the Draft Order on policy grounds, and believe it is inconsistent with Administration efforts to lower consumer prices. We also have fully briefed our view that Congress did not give the Commission authority to modify or eliminate the national cap.”

“ATVA’s position is that national (and local) consolidation among stations affiliated with the Big Four networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC) generally results in higher retransmission consent fees,” the letter concluded. “We believe that we have submitted sufficient evidence regarding national consolidation in this rulemaking to demonstrate this point, which should (at a minimum) give the Commission pause before permitting more national consolidation.”

The full letter can be found here.

NAB officials recently met with FCC officials to support the changes.

WASHINGTON—NAB officials continued their push to end strict ownership caps on station groups during a recent meeting with Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Olivia Trusty and her Senior Legal Advisor Marcus Maher.

During the July 23 meeting, which was disclosed in a July 27 filing with the agency, NAB president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt, NAB chief legal officer Rick Kaplan, and others others urged Commissioner Trusty to support replacement of the rigid 39 percent national TV cap with an approach that would give the Commission flexibility to approve TV station transactions that serve the public interest, while preserving its authority to review all transactions to guard against the possibility that a TV station merger could raise public interest concerns.

In addition, the NAB stressed the importance of expeditious FCC action on the pending 2022 quadrennial ownership review, given the vital need for elimination (or at least substantial reform) of the 30-year-old local radio ownership caps.

The filing noted that the NAB’s representatives began by reemphasizing the urgent need to repeal the analog-era national TV ownership limit.

“The current national TV rule dates from a time before the emergence and rapid growth of video streaming services, social media giants, massive digital advertising platforms, and smart devices ranging from phones to televisions,” the filing describing the meeting noted. “That rule is now not only unnecessary but affirmatively harmful. It prevents TV broadcasters – and only broadcasters – from gaining the scale needed to reach more viewers to better attract advertisers, and thereby earn the revenues required to invest in program acquisition and production, including local news, which is vital in today’s highly competitive video and advertising markets.”

“In short, scale allows broadcasters to offer quality services locally, especially in mid-sized and small markets with limited advertising bases, while the 39 percent cap only serves to limit the resources available to pay for localism,” the filing continued.

In terms of the pending quadrennial review, the filing stressed that “[l]ocal radio broadcasters cannot survive in today’s digital audio and advertising markets while hamstrung by three decades-old restrictions on their scale. NAB has documented at length how online and multichannel platforms dominate today’s audio marketplace and how digital advertising providers dominate local ad markets, to the detriment of local radio stations and the services they are able to offer in local communities…As NAB previously explained and the Commission previously recognized, localism is an expensive value, and the radio `industry’s ability to function in the ‘public interest, convenience, and necessity’ is fundamentally premised on its economic viability.’ Today, that viability is in serious question, and the radio industry requires regulatory relief now.”

The full letter describing the meeting is available here.

WASHINGTON—In response to the Federal Communications Commission’s ongoing investigation of whether the ABC-owned broadcast stations should lose their licenses, a number of former high-ranking FCC officials filed comments with the regulator attacking the probe as an unconstitutional attempt to quash news coverage critical of the Trump administration.

The filing by 13 former officials accuses FCC Chair Brendan Carr of using the early renewal proceeding as a pretense to punish ABC and Disney for broadcasting speech the Trump administration doesn’t like, calling it “a grave violation of both the Communications Act and the Constitution.”

“This early renewal proceeding follows a sustained campaign by Chairman Carr and the Trump administration of threatening legal sanctions against licensees whose speech President Trump dislikes,” the filing continued. “… [It] is in fact an assault on free speech disguised as regulatory process.”

The filing was signed by Kathryn C. Brown, Rachelle B. Chong, Mark S. Fowler, Jerald N. Fritz, Rosemary Harold, William T. Lake, Ruth Milkman, Dennis R. Patrick, Peter Pitsch, Alfred C. Sikes, Gloria Tristani, Thomas E. Wheeler, and Christopher J. Wright. They include former FCC chairs, commissioners, and senior staff who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Some of the petitioners were part of a group that issued similar criticisms of the agency in November of 2025 in a filing asking the agency to rescind it’s so-called “news distortion” policy.

That petition was dismissed in June on procedural grounds.

The filing stems from a controversial push by the FCC to regulate content based on the public interest standards of broadcast station licenses.

That has led to investigations into ABC programs like “The View,” and statements by President Trump and Carr threatening the licenses of stations airing “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”. In April, the FCC issued an order requiring ABC to apply for early renewal of its owned stations.

The virtually unprecedented order calls for the review of licenses that are not up for renewal until 2028 at the earliest. Last week, Carr suggested ABC’s editorial decision to stream, rather than broadcast, Trump’s election lie speech could also be penalized.

“Chairman Carr seems to be laboring under the ill-conceived notion that broadcasters have only partial rights to free speech under the First Amendment,” said Mark Fowler, a Republican who served as Chairman of the FCC from 1981 to 1987. “Just because the FCC issues licenses doesn’t make it the speech police. With this senseless early renewal proceeding, Carr is demonstrating that he has completely lost touch not just with the role of the FCC, but also with his own job description.”

“This proceeding is an effort to punish ABC and Disney for poorly disguised political reasons," said Rachelle Chong, a Republican who served as Commissioner of the FCC from 1994 to 1997. “The early review and the allegations are unusual in a typical FCC license review which suggests it is more about a desire to silence speech.”

In November, a number of former officials from this coalition filed a petition with the FCC to consider rescinding the news distortion policy, a tool Chairman Carr has abused to chill free speech in the press. The petitioners are represented by counsel at Protect Democracy and TechFreedom, as well as Andrew Jay Schwartzman and Gigi Sohn.

The full filing is available here.

NEW YORK—Paramount Global has reached an agreement with 12 state attorneys general to delay its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. The agreement puts the $111 billion deal on hold until a judge rules on the states’ antitrust lawsuit or the trial concludes in June 2027.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order July 20, pausing the case until she rules on a preliminary injunction that would halt the merger pending a trial.

The new agreement extends the temporary restraining order for another 14 days and means that Paramount won’t be able to close the deal until at least Aug. 18 at the earliest and possibly much longer.

If the court finds in favor of the states and issues a preliminary injunction, the deal could be delayed until completion of a trial in June of 2027.

“Our argument against this illegal merger is straightforward: When too few corporations have too much power in markets central to American life, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is one of the AGs who filed the antitrust lawsuit. “Today’s agreement is great news for audiences, movie theaters and the many people who write, build, and create the art, news, and entertainment so many of us enjoy. We are eager to continue to make our case in court and celebrate another tremendous win in our effort to ensure this unlawful merger never sees the light of day.”

The deal was approved by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice but attorneys general from 12 states quickly sued to stop the merger on grounds that it would violate federal antitrust law, leading to higher prices for film and cable audiences and resulting in fewer movies and TV shows.

Delays in completing the merger until next stumer could be costly for Paramount and raised concerns on Wall Street about the future of the deal. Shares in Paramount Global fell by 3.3% on July 24.

Paramount, however, called the agreement a “significant win.”

“The result is exactly what we have sought from the outset: a direct path to a trial based on the evidence,” it said in a statement. “This is the fastest and clearest way to prove that this transaction is good for competition, good for consumers, and good for creators, a conclusion dozens of competition authorities around the world have already reached. Plaintiffs’ market definitions bear no relationship to the realities of today’s marketplace and cannot withstand scrutiny. We look forward to proving our case at trial.”

LYNDONVILLE, N.Y.—Digital Alert Systems is reporting that its DASDEC Emergency Alert System (EAS) platform supports the new password requirements recently adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), enabling users to comply with the new rules through capabilities that are built into the system.

The announcement follows the Federal Communications Commission’s adoption of FCC 26-38, which establishes new cybersecurity requirements for Emergency Alert System (EAS) participants, including a requirement that passwords be at least 15 characters long. All current versions of DASDEC software already support passwords up to 16 characters, enabling users to meet the new requirement immediately without installing software updates or waiting for new password-management features.

FCC 26-38, the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking establishing the new cybersecurity password requirements, requires EAS participants to comply within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. While the publication date has not yet been announced, DASDEC customers are already equipped to meet the new password requirement using capabilities built into current versions of the platform.

“Cybersecurity has been a core design principle for DASDEC for many years, not merely a response to changing regulations,” said a spokesperson for Digital Alert Systems. “The FCC’s new password requirement aligns with established security best practices that our customers have already been able to implement. Our goal has always been to provide broadcasters, cable operators and other EAS participants with practical security tools that help protect these critical public safety systems.”

Beyond password length, DASDEC incorporates multiple layers of security designed to strengthen access control. The platform requires users to replace the factory-default password upon first sign-in, blocks common and prohibited passwords, prevents password reuse and warns administrators when passwords are more than 180 days old. DASDEC also locks accounts after multiple unsuccessful login attempts, helping slow automated brute-force attacks.

For organizations managing multiple facilities or EAS devices, DASDEC supports enterprise Single Sign-On (SSO) integrations. SSO enables administrators to manage user authentication centrally, assign role-based permissions, monitor access and quickly revoke credentials across connected systems when personnel changes occur. By reducing the need to maintain separate passwords for individual devices, SSO also encourages the use of stronger, more complex credentials throughout the organization.

More information is available on the company’s website.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission has adopted rules to auction 160 megahertz of spectrum in the upper C-band (3.98-4.14 GHz) by July 2027.

During the July Open Meeting when the Report & Order was adopted FCC Chair Brendan Carr said that the agency is now “on track to complete an auction in less than twelve months from now.”

Speaking at the July meeting, FCC Chair Brendan Carr said "our decision today sets the stage for the FCC to run an auction of prime, mid-band spectrum next year—exceeding the 100 megahertz minimum established in the law. The lower C-band, which the FCC freed up during the previous Trump Administration, brought 5G, fixed wireless, and other innovations to countless Americans. Now, in auctioning the Upper C-Band that sits next door, we will unify the two bands to create an enormous landmass of 440 megahertz of mid-band spectrum."

"Freeing up this spectrum drives down prices, raises speeds, and enhances competition," he said. "Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, America will once again lead the world in wireless. The One Big Beautiful Bill made certain that we will put this prime, mid-band spectrum to its best use through another major FCC auction."

The idea of auctioning more C-band spectrum had been opposed by the NAB and broadcasters and is likely to usher in a period of rapid technological shift from satellites using C-band spectrum to deliver content to solutions relying on IP distribution.

In June, North American Broadcast Association director-general Rebecca Hanson told TV Tech complained “[t[here are no viable alternatives that match what C-band delivers.”

As previously reported by TV Tech’s Fred Dawson, Hanson also stressed that “[w]e have members already suffering after the first auction,” citing evidence submitted in an FCC filing by the North American Spectrum Alliance, an independent project launched last year under NABA management. “I hesitate to say broadcasters will be just fine if we can keep 80 GHz. Current constraints are already having an impact.”

During the July 22, 2026 vote on the Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration (FCC 26-46) setting up plans and rules for the auction, FCC Chair Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty approved the measures; Commissioner Anna Gomez approved in part and dissented in part.

The FCC Order plans to bridge the Lower C-band and Upper C-band to create a single, harmonized “super band” spanning 440 megahertz (3.70-4.14 GHz)—a gigantic swath of licensed, 5G-grade mid-band spectrum that no other industrialized country can boast.

The FCC also reported that it will auction 60% more spectrum than the 100 megahertz minimum required under law, a decision that will raise tens of billions of dollars more for the U.S. Treasury to support deficit reduction and national priorities.

The FCC also stressed that the auction is on track to close by the statutory deadline of July 2027, and the FCC’s new rules ensure that the Upper C-Band can be lit up for most Americans before the end of 2030—faster than originally expected.

Wireless companies praised the FCC for the Order and the agencies plans to hold more spectrum auctions in 2028.

T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan said “the best wireless service in the world and the jobs that come with it require government and industry to keep our foot on the gas as we accelerate 6G. That’s exactly what Chairman Carr did this morning by adopting pro-6G rules for the C-Band 2.0 auction and committing to a 2.7 GHz auction in 2028. The auction of two “super bands” of mid-band spectrum in the next two years will extend America’s wireless leadership and will deliver real results for Americans during this Administration.”

The FCC described additional benefits, details and features of the Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration adopted on July 22 as follows:

• The Impact: This plan puts America on a path towards massive gains that could result in at least $422 billion in GDP, 2.4 million new jobs, and $621 billion in consumer surplus by freeing up additional spectrum.
• The ‘Super Band’: The 2027 upper C-band transition will ultimately result in a 440 megahertz contiguous block of spectrum for the provision of wireless services by combining the Lower C-band (3.7-3.98 GHz) and now the Upper C-band (3.98-4.14 GHz).
• The Auction: The 2027 upper C-band auction will make available 160 megahertz of valuable mid-band spectrum through the auction of 3,248 new flexible-use spectrum licenses throughout the contiguous United States. The rules allow winning bidders to commence wireless services in the upper C-band starting in December 2030 for the top-75 markets in the contiguous United States, and in any remaining markets starting July 2031.
• The Incumbents: The rules set forth a framework that will fairly and expeditiously transition incumbent satellite operations out of the reconfigured portion of the upper C-band. Total incentives to satellite operators will be less in aggregate than those paid after the lower C-band auction, but roughly commensurate given the lower amount of spectrum being cleared.
• The Neighborhood: The new rules take steps to ensure a continued successful coexistence between wireless operations throughout the C-band and radio altimeters in the nearby 4.2–4.4 GHz band, and establishes rebates to support the domestic aviation sector in its efforts to retrofit and upgrade the performance of these critical safety tools.
• The Coordination: The item reflects extensive input and coordination from the FCC’s federal partners, including through OMB’s OIRA and NTIA’s IRAC review processes. In particular, this effort has been closely coordinated with the FAA, which is undertaking a parallel rulemaking to greatly enhance the robustness and signal rejection capabilities of radio altimeters.
• The Incentive Payments: The item proposes that winning bidders will be responsible for transition costs and incentive payments for in-band licensees, as well as rebates for the purchase and installation of upgraded radio altimeters. This total budget is well below the low-end of expected proceeds from auctioning the 160 megahertz.
• The Process: Following the Commission’s successful lower C-band auction in 2020, the FCC began work last year – under its renewed auction authority and upper C-band auction remit pursuant to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – to establish the framework necessary to successfully put this spectrum to more intensive use. The Commission built on an original Notice of Inquiry to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking last November, and today adopted final rules. In the next few days, Commission staff will seek comment on auction procedures before establishing the final procedures in preparation for the auction.

The initial Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration is available here. The final document was not yet available on July 22.

TV Tech will add reactions as they come in.

WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau, has approved the sale of WTVQ-DT, in Lexington, Kentucky from WTVQTV, LLC, an wholly-owned subsidiary of Morris Network, Inc. to Scripps.

The approval of the license transfer follows a March announcement by Scripps that it would pay $15.8 million for the ABC affiliate. The acquisition of WTVQ creates a duopoly with Scripps’ NBC affiliate, WLEX in Lexington, Kentucky.

The July 20 Order, denied a petition by DirecTV. It opposed the license transfer by arguing the combination would create “direct economic harm” by forcing it to pay higher prices for programming.

“[W]e find that the proposed transaction fully complies with the Commission’s rules, including the post-Zimmer Radio Local Television Ownership Rule, and that there are no issues or potential public interest harms identified in the record that would require further consideration,” the FCC concluded. “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 Application will result in public interest benefits and serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

The full Order is available here.

WASHINGTON—Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr announced a tentative agenda for the August Open Commission Meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2026.

While the vote on replacing TV station ownership rules will certainly have the biggest impact on broadcasters, the agency will also be considering opening up more than 200 megahertz of unlicensed spectrum and other items.

The FCC described the items as follows:

• Opening Up More Than 200 Megahertz of Unlicensed Spectrum for D2D Offerings. The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would explore new avenues to allow innovative unlicensed wireless devices to communicate directly with satellites. The item would propose and seek comment on use of certain frequencies available under part 15 of the Commission's rules for communications between Earth and space, including direct-to-device (D2D) services. The NPRM would also propose to clarify that use of part 15 unlicensed devices is permitted within FCC-authorized spacecraft, and seek comment on other scenarios where part 15 unlicensed devices may safely operate in space. (ET Docket No. 26-169)
• Maximizing Efficiencies in Universal Service Administration. The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would propose to strengthen the Commission’s management and administration of the Universal Service Fund (USF) by reforming and improving USF administration processes, the structure of USF administration, operating costs associated with USF administration, and the impact of USAC’s Board of Directors on USF administration. (WC Docket No. 26-173)
• Replacing the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would remove artificial barriers to broadcast television’s ability to attract capital and generate revenue, thus enabling broadcast television owners to better fulfill their public interest obligations, including through increased investment in local programming. The Report and Order also enables broadcast television station owners to expand their audience reach, gaining important leverage against national television networks. (MB Docket No. 17-318)
• Promoting Telehealth in Rural America. The Commission will consider a Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would seek comment on several improvements to the Rural Health Care Program intended to reduce administrative burdens on program participants and better administer limited program funding given increased program participation and service costs. The accompanying Order would permit the use of previously approved rural rates for funding year 2027 that would otherwise require approval of a cost-based justification. (WC Docket No. 17-310)

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

Open Meetings are streamed live at www.fcc.gov/live.

Documents relating to each item on the agenda are available here.

The FCC publicly releases the draft text of each item expected to be considered at the next Open Commission Meeting. One-page cover sheets are included in the public drafts to help summarize each item. All these materials will be available on the FCC’s Open Meeting page: www.fcc.gov/openmeeting.

WASHINGTON—Representatives of the AWARN Alliance recently met with Federal Communications Commission officials to stress the fact that NextGen TV devices are designed to receive Emergency Alerts and to rebut findings of a study by Weigel Broadcasting that claimed to have found problems with the ability of ATSC 3.0 devices to receive crucial emergency alerts.

The July 13 meeting, which was summarized in a July 15 letter to the FCC, involved Dave Arland and Kathryn Barnhart of the AWARN Alliance, Media Media Bureau staff (Hillary DeNigro, Lyle Elder, Mark Colombo, Maria Mullarkey, and Evan Baranoff), Allison Howell and Patrick Harty (legal advisor and staff for Commissioner Brendan Carr) and Marcus Maher (legal advisor for Commissioner Olivia Trusty.)

During the meeting the AWARN representatives stressed that their “mission is to save lives and protect communities by leveraging advanced emergency alerting, news, and information powered by the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard” and that they were meeting with the FCC “to clear up a misrepresentation made about the ability of ATSC 3.0 receivers to properly receive and display Emergency Alert System (EAS) messaging.”

AWARN also stressed that “the voluntary Advanced Emergency Information (AEI) capability of the ATSC 3.0 standard is a useful and effective supplement to the EAS already in place, which reaches millions of viewers with broadcast signals. As the AWARN Alliance has previously stated, we reiterated that local stations are the best option for keeping local audiences informed during specific emergencies, including providing geolocation targeted information, maps, multilingual and sign language services, and other capabilities that are anticipated in the ATSC 3.0 standard.”

In addition, AWARN argued that “more than 18.5 million NextGen TV sets and converter boxes can receive EAS Alerts…[C]ontrary to the impression delivered by Weigel Broadcasting during their recent meeting and subsequent ex parte filing , virtually every ATSC 3.0 receiver can easily tune to ATSC 3.0 broadcasts with an antenna and without an internet connection.”

They also rebutted Weigel’s contention that “an internet connection is a requirement for ATSC 3.0 reception…this is not a factual statement. We noted that EAS signaling is present in the actual linear broadcast, and that supplemental data can be delivered through optional AEI capabilities of the standard, which could rely on both broadcast and internet-delivered information. But if a viewer is simply watching a linear program, we stated that viewer will get EAS alerts.”

AWARN also complained that “receivers `tested’ by Weigel were “cherry-picked” to emphasize their point” and that they focused on just two products.

Although AWARN did not mention this, one of those products, HDHomeRun has since upgraded its boxes so they can receive alerts without an internet connection.

“Unmentioned in the selected Weigel reception results is the fact that internet service is not required for ATSC 3.0 reception with the least expensive NextGen TV receivers now available to consumers, including set-top receivers manufactured by ADTH and Zinwell…Further, we pointed out that the submitted analysis only considered advanced “gateway” set-top devices with retail prices that exceed $200, designed for consumers who have broadband connections and who also desire advanced program guides and multi-room viewing capability.”

AWARN also noted that the Zapperbox device that Weigel “tested” is the only device on the market that requires an internet connection to decrypt content, and a Zapperbox software update to change this behavior is already in the works.”

The full discussion is available here.

A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order pausing the $110 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery as she considers a ruling on a preliminary Injunction in an antitrust case filed by 12 attorneys general.

The July 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California pauses the deal for 14 days while she considers a preliminary injunction, which would block the merger for the duration of the litigation and impose substantial costs on Paramount.

“My office and attorneys general nationwide have secured an emergency order blocking the unlawful merger of Warner Bros. and Paramount,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading a coalition of states seeking to block the deal on antitrust grounds. “This is a critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day. …With our lawsuit, we’re fighting for a free and fair market and a thriving film and television industry that serves creatives and audiences alike.”

As previously reported, the case argues that the deal, the largest in Hollywood history, would combine two of Hollywood’s five major film distributors and two of the five major owners of basic cable channels, “inflicting substantial harm on movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences nationwide.”

The deal has been approved by the Justice Department and Paramount had been hoping to close it as early as July 22.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering whether to grant the deal an exemption from foreign ownership rules.