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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A representative of a group focused on boosting TV and film production in the United States is urging Congress to take action on proposed legislation that would provide incentives to the industry.

In an op-ed published in The Hill, James Babbin, a film and audio producer, actor and member of the Coalition for American Production, voiced support for legislation proposed last month that would provide tax incentives for studios and other media production companies to boost media production in the U.S.

According to its sponsors, the bipartisan Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act could bring hundreds of thousands of production jobs back to the U.S. by establishing a 20% tax credit on labor expenses for American workers on qualifying film and television productions, with bonus credits worth up to 30% for productions that hire in rural or federal disaster areas, work across multiple states, or bring work home from overseas.

Noting that the U.S. film and television annually brings in approximately $9 billion more from overseas than the U.S., Babbin cited industry statistics that showed that the amount of such production is decreasing domestically, with 45% of U.S. films and scripted TV shows being produced outside the U.S., compared to one-third three years ago.

“That is not just a scene change,” Babbin wrote, “it is skilled work, artistry and investment leaving the U.S.”

States have been aggressive going after media production, with Babbin citing Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah and Pennsylvania leading the way among the nearly 40 states that currently offer film incentives.

But that’s not enough, he added.

“A state is not a country. States can influence where projects land; they cannot alone ensure those projects stay in the U.S,” he wrote. “Even strong state programs can be outbid when other countries offer more competitive packages. Sixty-five countries offer national production incentives. Some, like Canada, Australia and Japan, combine them with regional programs, giving them an even greater advantage.

“A federal incentive won’t diminish competition among states; it will strengthen their ability to compete globally while rewarding those that innovate most,” he added.

Babbin also called for transparency, supporting a test that would verify that the act is producing the economic benefits touted in the act.

In the end, Babbin said such legislation is needed because “the industry won’t stand still.”

“Global competition, changing audience habits, and new technologies are rewriting the script,” he concluded. “Disruption isn’t necessarily a threat; it can be an opportunity if America strengthens the infrastructure that generations have built and prepares for the next act.”

The bill is led by Representatives Laura Friedman, Nathaniel Moran (TX-01), Linda Sánchez (CA-38) (CA-30), Brian Jack (GA-03), David Kustoff (TN-08), Judy Chu (CA-28), Mike Carey (OH-15), and Tom Suozzi (NY-03) in the House. In the Senate, the bill is led by Senators Tim Scott (SC) and Adam Schiff (CA).

A one-pager on the bill is available here. Full text is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will be the first nationwide in three years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ETRS Form Two will then be due within 48 hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a case that stretches back to 2018, Comcast was found guilty Thursday of patent infringement and was ordered to pay the plaintiff—Wherever TV—$213 million in damages.

The case began in 2018 when Wherever TV filed a lawsuit the Middle District of Florida accusing Comcast of violating its patent for interactive program guide technology and asking for $177 million in damages.

Comcast was granted a judgement in a jury trial in 2023 when the judge dismissed the case based on a lack of evidence. That decision was reversed in 2025 when a Federal Court agreed with Wherever TV’s argument that the prior decision had not clearly defined certain terms of how the patent was violated.

Comcast appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied its request in February. This week’s trial was overseen by U.S. District Court William Jung; Mark A. Cavicchia is identified as the inventor of the technology.

Adam Sanderson, representing WhereverTV, said the plaintiffs “are deeply grateful to the jury for their diligence and attention to this case, which has lasted over the last eight years."

"The United States is unique because it protects the freedom to innovate and ensures inventors get credit for their breakthroughs," he said "Today, a federal jury in Tampa, Florida, validated our client Mark Cavicchia's vision from over 20 years ago — an invention that has transformed the television-viewing experience for consumers by merging traditional cable channels and modern streaming channels into a single user-friendly program guide.”

Comcast said the verdict was not supported by evidence,

"While we thank the jury for their consideration, we strongly disagree with today's verdict and the damages awarded, which are unsupported by the facts and law," Comcast said. "We remain confident that our X1 guide does not infringe WhereverTV's patent, and we will pursue all of our legal options including appeal. This decision has no impact on our customers."

Rick Kaplan, a key figure at the National Association of Broadcasters for the past 14 years, will leave NAB at the end of the year.

For the last five years he has been NAB’s chief legal officer and executive vice president for legal and regulatory affairs, putting him at the elbow of President/CEO Curtis LeGeyt through some of NAB’s biggest issues.

The association also announced that in January it will bring its government relations and legal teams together under Shawn Donilon, who will be chief advocacy officer. LeGeyt called Donilon “a trusted leader and a skilled strategist.”

NAB said this structure will strengthen coordination between its advocacy on Capitol Hill, its interactions with the administration and its work with the Federal Communications Commission.

Legal Wins
NAB had high praise for Rick Kaplan. LeGeyt cited his ability to build consensus and his “tireless” advocacy.

According to the announcement text, Kaplan “led NAB through a decade of critical court wins, including a unanimous victory at the Supreme Court removing outdated restrictions on broadcast ownership. He also oversaw a seminal victory for the radio industry before the Copyright Royalty Board, which dramatically lowered streaming rates for broadcasters. That win paved the way for a landmark settlement in the most recent webcasting proceeding.”

NAB said he also worked on regulatory and legal issues including ATSC 3.0, retransmission consent, the FCC’s broadcast spectrum incentive auction, music licensing, sponsor ID rules and reducing broadcasters’ regulatory fees.

Prior to NAB, Kaplan held several roles at the FCC, including chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and counsel roles with Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioner Mignon Clyburn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASHINGTON — On Tuesday evening, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., extended an earlier restraining order against the Trump administration’s efforts to bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters from the White House. The news outlets are suing the White House on the grounds that such a ban violates their constitutional rights.

The DOJ announced on Wednesday it was appealing the decision.

In his decision, Judge Timothy Kelly — a Trump appointee — wrote that the court believed that the news organizations “were likely to succeed on their claims that their hard passes were revoked without due process required under the Fifth Amendment.” The court also held that the ban violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and of the press.

In late September, Free Press joined nearly 80 press-freedom groups and news organizations in filing an amicus brief in support of CNN, MS NOW and Politico.

Nora Benavidez, Free Press’ senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights, said, “the district court rightly affirmed longstanding precedent that protects press freedom in the people's house. Donald Trump cannot unilaterally revoke journalists’ press access because he doesn’t like their coverage or questions. Judge Kelly’s strong ruling affirms that presidential cherry-picking of newsroom access violates core First Amendment principles.

“A powerful district court ruling citing strong First Amendment precedent isn't the end, however. Donald Trump has used his bully pulpit to pressure his loyalist FCC to retaliate against news outlets and successfully pushed Congress to defund public media — all while his supporters have threatened judges who uphold the rule of law when cases don’t go Trump’s way. This case is critical to the continued ability for people to hold power to account. Trump’s relentless assaults on the press won’t cease — making it all the more crucial to protect journalists’ right to hold the administration accountable.”

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

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

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

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

Register here for the Oct. 16 session.

Register here for the Oct. 20 session.

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

MCLEAN, Va. and BURBANK, Calif.—Tegna and Disney Entertainment Television have struck a comprehensive multiyear deal that renews station affiliation agreements for all of Tegna's ABC stations.

“Our partnership with Disney Entertainment Television offers viewers an incredible programming lineup that includes the NFL, NBA, SEC football and shows like ‘Dancing with the Stars’ and ‘Grey’s Anatomy,’ anchored by strong local news their communities depend on,” Tegna CEO Patrick Paolini said.

“We’re pleased to extend our successful partnership with TEGNA across these outstanding ABC stations,” Susi D’Ambra-Coplan, senior vice president of affiliate relations at Disney Entertainment Television, said. “Together, we remain committed to serving viewers with trusted local journalism paired with the best in entertainment, sports and national news.”

The deal covers the following stations:

• KBMT, Beaumont, Texas
• KIII, Corpus Christi, Texas
• KVUE, Austin, Texas
• KXTV, Sacramento, Calif.
• WATN, Memphis, Tenn.
• WFAA, Dallas
• WHAS, Louisville, Ky.
• WJXX, Jacksonville, Fla.
• WNEP, Wilkes-Barre-Scranton, Pa.
• WOI, Des Moines, Iowa
• WQAD, Davenport, Iowa (Quad Cities)
• WVEC Norfolk, Va.; and
• WZZM in Grand Rapids, Mich.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor's Note: This article originally appeared on TV Tech sister brand Radio World.

In my February Radio World article “Thoughts on AI and the Law,” I suggested that every station using artificial intelligence should adopt a policy addressing AI use disclosure, consent and compensation, and should obtain certifications from programmers and advertisers concerning their use of AI.

California’s recent legislation — and the rapid spread of similar laws around the country — makes that recommendation more urgent.

That the industry is moving forward with AI is inescapable. However, broadcasters must be careful and open about its use and cannot simply treat it as just another cost-saving production tool. It must be recognized as an issue that can impact your reputation for honesty, and compliance with political broadcast regulations.

California has addressed these issues perhaps more comprehensively than any other state and serves as a good model for broadcasters nationwide, although many other states appear to be following the same path.

California’s Framework
In 2026, the state created a multi-level legal structure that affects many aspects of AI use by broadcasters.

Its regulations address a variety of issues, including synthetic-content origin and changes in its use, known as “provenance,” training, frontier-model safety, mitigating advanced AI risks, privacy and employment discrimination.

Effective in August, the California AI Transparency Act, or CAITA, requires producers of publicly accessible generative-AI with more than 1 million monthly users or visitors to provide a free public detection tool and to embed disclosures in AI-generated images and video and audio content that permanently includes the content’s origin and history.

The law reaches beyond AI platforms. Beginning in 2028, manufacturers of equipment used by broadcasters, such as cameras, mobile phones and microphones, among other things, must automatically embed origin and creation information (called “latent disclosures”) into the recorded content.

In addition to CAITA, California has enacted several statutes and regulations that touch on AI and are now in effect. These address a myriad of issues, including training requirements, safety risk assessments, critical-incident reporting, whistleblower protection and AI-assisted employment decisions.

While most individual stations will not be regulated as frontier-model developers or covered GenAI providers, they need to be aware that these laws affect the tools they buy and that the provenance information (where an object, data or document comes from and how it has changed over time) attached to the AI tools they may use.

Many observers believe that California’s AI laws may influence laws in other states and even, potentially, federal or industry standards.

California Political
With campaign season upon us, it is important to note that California has already adopted disclosure requirements for political ads with AI.

The rule applies to California political committees that create, originally publish or originally distribute qualifying political advertisements. Any advertisements that contain an image, audio, video or other media that was entirely created by AI, and would falsely appear authentic to a reasonable person or was materially altered by AI in a way that would give a reasonable person a fundamentally different understanding of the material, must include, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the following statement: “Ad generated or substantially altered using artificial intelligence.”

This disclosure applies to radio and television broadcast ads that contain AI.

For radio, a political spot containing a cloned candidate voice, a fabricated exchange or other qualifying synthetic audio must carry a spoken disclosure. A separate requirement applies to television and online video content governing how the required AI disclosure must be placed and appear.

These disclosure requirements are imposed primarily on the political committee rather than a station that runs it, but stations should be knowledgeable and be certain to inquire of the producer or distributor whether AI was used, so that the broadcaster does not find itself inadvertently airing unlawful content or damaging its credibility.

Idea Gone National
While California is an important example to study, it is far from alone in regulating AI use in political communications.

Thirty-one states have enacted laws regulating the use of deepfakes in political and election communications, according to tracking from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Most state laws include disclosure requirements similar to California. Minnesota and Texas prohibit the publication of political deepfakes a certain number of days prior to an election. Maryland has no time limit and instead prohibits deceptive deepfakes related to the election year-round.

The other 28 states require disclosures on the media, similar to the existing requirement to disclose who paid for a political ad, the AI disclosure requires the ad to state if it contains a deepfake.

Colorado and Utah require additional disclosures in the metadata — descriptive information about a file’s creator, when the file was created and when the file was edited. Some provide civil remedies, while others carry criminal penalties.

This developing regulatory patchwork presents a practical problem for station groups and political buyers. A spot prepared for national or regional distribution may comply with one state’s laws, but not another. The required words, placement and duration may differ. So may the definitions of “AI-generated,” “synthetic media,” “deepfake” and “material alteration.”

Broadcasters therefore should no longer accept a general representation that a political advertisement is “legally compliant.” The representation should address the states and platforms in which the spot will run and should specifically identify whether AI was used to create or materially alter any voice, image or video.

The Section 315 Problem
Political broadcasting law makes compliance with new AI regulations even more complicated for broadcasters.

They retain discretion and can censor noncandidate issue, independent-expenditure and ballot-measure advertisements and can demand corrections. However, a legally qualified candidate’s “use” presents a different problem since the Communications Act prohibits a station from censoring a candidate use.

The Communications Act states clearly at § 312(a)(7) that all legally qualified and bona fide write-in candidates for federal elective office are to have “reasonable access” to broadcast facilities. Those federal requirements do not fit neatly with state laws requiring specified words or visual elements in AI-generated political advertising as the broadcaster is prohibited from censoring the ad and must run them for a candidate for federal elective office provided they contain a “use” by the candidate.

A “use” is defined as any positive use of a candidate’s voice or picture in a context not otherwise exempt under Section 315 of the Communications Act. Thus, any program or commercial that identifies the candidate by voice or picture in a positive way and is not a bona fide newscast, bona fide news interview, bona fide news documentary or on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event, cannot be censored by the broadcaster. As a result, the broadcaster is provided immunity from liability for the content of the ad.

However, it cannot be assumed that Section 315 automatically disposes of every question involving state law or station liability. Therefore, to the extent possible, the safest course is prevention. Ask the whether AI was used when the order is placed, explain the applicable disclosure requirements to the buyer and ask that the candidate or committee deliver a compliant spot.

The FCC considered a federal solution in 2024. In MB Docket No. 24-211, the commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that asked whether the FCC should increase transparency in political ads by having political advertisers indicate if AI is being used in the advertisement and make on-air disclosures of AI use. It does not propose the prohibition of such content, only disclosing the use of AI within political ads. It further proposed to require broadcasters and certain other video and audio distributors to inquire whether political advertising contained AI-generated content, make an on-air disclosures and place a corresponding notice in their online political file.

The FCC explained it was attempting to address consumers’ concerns that AI-generated content was leading to a rising tide of disinformation, while also bringing uniformity to the patchwork of state laws and greater transparency in our elections.

The docket is still active with a list of filed comments 49 pages long, but the FCC has not yet acted. So, for now, broadcasters must continue to comply with state-by-state requirements as well as the established FCC sponsorship identification and political broadcasting rules.

A Broader Risk
While the focus is on political advertising in election years, there is a longer-term regulatory risk.

AI-generated voices can duplicate the authentic voices of real people, including a station personality, public official, celebrity or ordinary caller. It can “hallucinate” an apparently authentic interview, eyewitness account, endorsement or news clips. This can lead to increased liability for stations that are using AI to help generate content.

Existing law already reaches much of this conduct. Defamation, false light, the right of publicity, copyright, fraud, deceptive-advertising law and contract rights do not disappear merely because an AI model produced the content. A disclosure that the production of a segment used AI will not cure a defamatory statement, an unauthorized voice clone or a fabricated emergency announcement.

Stations should mandate human editorial review for news, elections, weather emergencies, health information, public safety and any content purporting to quote from or depict a real person. An “AI-assisted” label cannot become a substitute for human verification of factual statements.

The same caution towards AI use applies to entertainment and promotional programming. A synthetic host may be efficient, but the station must determine whether it has the right to reproduce the voice or persona on which the host is based.

Talent agreements should expressly address training, cloning, reuse, derivative voices, post-employment use and compensation. The SAG-AFTRA principles of consent, disclosure and appropriate compensation remain a sound guide, even when a particular employee or contractor is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Stations should also examine syndicated programs, barter programming, paid interviews, commercials and network feeds for AI use. A station often will not know whether outside material was produced using AI unless it asks. Programmer and advertiser agreements should require disclosure of material AI use and representations that all necessary rights and consents were obtained.

Digital Distribution Changes the Analysis
Broadcasters should resist the temptation to treat their website, app, podcast, streaming channel, connected-TV product and social-media accounts merely as extensions of the over-the-air station. They may be governed differently under relevant law.

As noted above, since Aug. 2, 2026, CAITA has required certain very large providers of publicly accessible generative-AI systems to provide detection tools and content-provenance disclosures. Most local stations that use third-party AI services will not be covered by these requirements, but the analysis could change if a media company develops, substantially modifies or publicly offers its own generative-AI service.

Even where CAITA does not regulate the station directly, it offers broadcasters a new resource to verify compliance. Newsrooms can use provider detection tools and examine provenance information when evaluating suspicious audio, photographs or video. Stations also should preserve — rather than strip — standards-compliant metadata and digital signatures as material moves through editing, traffic, web-publishing and social-media systems.

The 2027 CAITA very large-platform requirements will make that preservation practice even more important for a station group whose digital operation could satisfy the statutory platform thresholds.

California’s Training Data Transparency Act only applies to developers that make generative-AI systems publicly available. A broadcaster that merely uses a commercial AI service ordinarily is a customer, not the developer. A broadcaster that trains and releases a public model using its news archive, announcer voices, photographs or programming may be in a very different position. It also must determine whether it has the rights necessary to use that material for training.

Digital operations raise privacy questions as well. Station apps and websites may collect personal identifiers, location information, listening histories, contest data and advertising profiles. California’s privacy rules now address certain automated decision-making and risk assessments. AI used for targeted advertising, audience profiling, hiring or other consequential decisions can therefore create obligations that ordinary over-the-air broadcasting does not.

A Policy for 2026
Given the expanding state-law patchwork, it is essential that each station have a written AI policy in place. At a minimum, each station should:

• Require political buyers and outside programmers to identify AI-generated or materially AI-altered content in writing;
• Require each buyer to certify compliance with every applicable state disclosure law;
• Route candidate uses that do not comply with AI disclosure requirements to counsel rather than editing material at the station to attempt to comply;
• Require human review of news, emergency, election, health and public-safety content;
• Prohibit unauthorized cloning of employee, candidate, celebrity or other persons voices or likenesses;
• Preserve content credentials, watermarks and provenance metadata rather than stripping them;
• Limit the entry of confidential station, employee, advertiser and source information into public AI systems;
• Address ownership, consent, compensation and post-employment use in talent and vendor agreements, and
• Include separate policy provisions that apply to broadcast, streaming, websites, apps, podcasts and social media.

California’s most important message is not the wording of one disclaimer. It is that broadcasters are entering an era in which they will be expected to know — or at least to ask — whether the voices and information they distribute are real.

AI can help broadcasters remain efficient, competitive and creative. But broadcast’s most valuable asset has never been its ability to generate more content at lower cost. It is the audience’s belief that the station knows and serves its community and can be trusted. Any AI policy should begin there.

This column is provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice pertaining to any specific factual situation. Legal decisions should be made only after proper consultation with a legal professional of your choosing.

Read more broadcast law columns from Gregg Skall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The group includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for more information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is how the company describes the updates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request from Nexstar Media Group that could allow a DirecTV lawsuit against the nation’s largest TV station group to proceed, according to Reuters.

At issue is a 2023 complaint from DirecTV accusing Nexstar of colluding with Mission Broadcasting and White Knight to fix the prices of retransmission consent fees in markets where both Nexstar and either Mission or White Knight own a Big Four station.

DirecTV alleged that Mission and White Knight shared a common negotiator who was, in fact, an agent of Nexstar. It also claimed that this negotiator improperly shared confidential rates and other financial information with Nexstar, and that the three defendants coordinated their respective blackout dates and media responses. The satellite operator claimed that the station goups' actions resulted in channels that went dark for approximately 1 million of its customers.

A federal district court dismissed the case in 2024, but in December 2025, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York affirmed DirecTV had standing to sue under antitrust laws and could prosecute its claims against Nexstar and its sidecars.

Nexstar has argued that it would only be liable for price fixing if the other party ended up paying the inflated price.

In its case before the Supreme Court, Nexstar argued that the December 2025 ruling conflicts with decisions from other federal courts; DirecTV claimed that there was no conflict. It also argued that the 2nd Circuit’s decision could broaden liability issues.

Skydance CEO David Ellison announced late last week that the combined Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery will be named “Skydance.”

The merger, which took nearly a year to complete and will be finalized Oct. 6, is valued at approximately $111 billion and will create a studio that’s a “creative-first home for bold, quality storytelling,” he said. Ellison, son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, founded the original Skydance production company in 2006.

“We chose this name for a few important reasons,” Ellison wrote in a post on X last week. “First and foremost, as we bring Paramount and Warner Bros. together, we wanted to preserve what has made each of these studios iconic. Both have distinct identities, extraordinary legacies and brands that have resonated with audiences for generations.\

“We never wanted a new corporate identity to diminish, alter or overshadow either one,” Ellison added. “Instead, we wanted a name that would give the combined company an identity of its own while allowing Paramount and Warner Bros.—and all our extraordinary brands—to remain in the spotlight.”

A federal judge gave the green light to the merger on Sept. 30. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín called the deal a "reasonable factual and legal resolution“ and rejected objections seeking broader restrictions.

The merger has its share of opponents, not least from Hollywood. Actor Mark Ruffalo called the move "incredibly disappointing" and warned that creativity and people’s livelihoods will be threatened.

“This merger will stifle creativity, weaken free speech, and cost people their jobs—it is a bad deal for this country and should never have been approved,” Ruffalo wrote in a post on X.

“This is an incredibly disappointing outcome for the hundreds of thousands of us who stood up to block it, but it's also not the end,” he continued. “This grassroots movement isn't going to fade away and neither is our resolve. This was never about just one merger: this was about fighting back against corrupt oligarch billionaires trampling the interests of everyday people to line their own pockets.”

Ellison will probably have more immediate concerns when the merger is completed this week, given the disastrous debut of Warner Bros.’ movie “Digger” this weekend. Despite its Tom Cruise star power, the film—estimated to have cost upwards of $250 million, including marketing— grossed just $8 million domestically and $12 million internationally at the box office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and George Whitesides (D-Calif.) have called for an investigation into President Donald Trump’s use of taxpayer funds to produce and distribute ads that promote the administration just weeks ahead of the midterm elections, Politico reported.

In a letter to the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel, the congressmen asked the GAO to investigate the “source, accounts, and total amount of taxpayer funds used by the Executive Office of the President to produce and distribute this advertisement across major television markets and official White House social media channels.”

Raskin, currently the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee could potentially lead a Congressional investigation if Democrats take control of the House, which is widely expected next month.

In their letter, Whitesides and Raskin also asked the Office of Special Counsel to determine if the ads “paid for by millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, constitute a violation of the Hatch Act, and determine who should be held accountable.”

The ads, which began running on Sunday, promote what Trump calls his administration's “successes,” declaring that “America will never be a Communist country,” and end with the phrase “paid for by the U.S. government.”

“These ads constitute an illegal use of taxpayer funds, perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that they are virtually identical to the ones Donald Trump used during his 2024 presidential campaign, and in fact use the same footage and the same inept ideological messaging,” they wrote.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr dismissed such concerns over the ads. When asked about them this week during a press conference, the chairman said, “there’s nothing in there that strikes me as out of the ordinary or that would merit any sort of FCC review,” adding: “There are groups on the left that have long worked and pushed to weaponize the FCC’s license-renewal process. I’m sure they’ll do it again in the future. Again, with respect to these, they are normal PSAs that don’t raise any red flags.”

Several senators are accusing the administration of diverting $20 million from Customs and Border Protection to “bankroll the obscene political ads,” an accusation confirmed by an official and a top Republican senator to NBC News.

The White House also dismissed such concerns.

A spokesperson described them as “public service announcements,” despite the timing, saying such ads are a reminder to viewers “to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad. The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country.”

Dish Network this week removed WTVQ (Channel 36), the ABC affiliate serving Lexington, Ky. from its lineup this week.

Station owner E W Scripps, responded to the removal by calling it a “clear violation of the agreement Scripps currently has in place with Dish following Scripps' acquisition of WTVQ earlier this year.”

Losing WTVQ at this moment means Lexington-area Dish subscribers would not be able to view ABC network programming including NCAA and SEC college football, WNBA playoffs and the upcoming NBA and NHL seasons, including local coverage of Nashville Predators hockey, as well as ABC series including “Grey’s Anatomy,” “The Rookie,” “Scrubs,” “Abbott Elementary,” and “20/20.”

The reason for the removal is unclear and Dish has yet to issue a statement. Meanwhile, Scripps suggested the usual alternative methods to access WTVQ, via antenna, as well as informing viewers that they can get local news, weather updates and sports coverage on WTVQ’s sister station, WLEX, which Dish still carries.

WTVQ is also available on vMVPDs such as Fubo, Hulu with Live TV and YouTube TV, as well as DirecTV.

This most recent kerfuffle is the latest in a series of ongoing conflict between Scripps and MVPDs; in August the station group was sued by Charter over carriage of its Las Vegas station KMCC.

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

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

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

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

(Read the joint broadcasters association comments.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOS ANGELES—California Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed the Community NEWS Act, a bill incentivizing newsrooms to hire and retain journalists.

The bill, supported by the SAG-AFTRA union, offers qualified news organizations a refundable employment tax credit of $20,000 for each of the first five full-time journalists hired and $15,000 for each additional full-time journalist hired, in addition to $7,500 for part-time journalists and a stackable $15,000 credit for new hires.

“Governor Newsom’s signing of the Community NEWS Act is a huge win for the quality journalism needed to build a healthy, informed society,” said SAG-AFTRA president Sean Astin. “Thank you Gov. Newsom, Assemblymember Chris Ward and AB 2222’s allies in the California Legislature for making the policy changes necessary to ensure continued access to the news and information that keeps our democracy thriving.”

Passage comes more than a year after Congress approved the Rescissions Act of 2025, which eliminated $1.1 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a longstanding source of grants for local PBS and NPR affiliates. These cuts have prompted staffing reductions and programming changes at stations across the country, leaving many to explore alternative funding strategies.

According to the 2026 Local Journalist Index, local journalist employment has fallen more than 80% since 2002.

Supporters of the act have argued that tax credits could help slow the decline of local news coverage by making it more economically viable for outlets of all sizes to employ professional reporters and storytellers. Vermont, Illinois, New York and New Mexico have incentivized support for local news.

More information is available on Newsom’s website and the SAG-AFTRA website.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala.—A majority of state residents polled wants Alabama Public Television (APT) to continue its relationship with PBS, but among those who expressed an opinion slightly more than half perceived a political leaning in its coverage.

The findings, part of a poll conducted by the firm Cygnal, were released Sept. 29 coinciding with a public meeting of the Alabama Educational Television Foundation Authority (AETFA).

An article by Ben Sessoms on the website Alabama Reflector website reported that at an October 2025 meeting of AETFA, an authority commissioner said he opposed PBS programming due to perceived political bias.

According to the Cygnal poll, of the 363 respondents that offered an opinion, 32% said APT programming leans politically liberal, 20% perceived a conservative bent and 47% said the programming is generally balanced. A total of 237 of the poll’s 600 respondents were unsure.

The poll also asked respondents about whether or not APT stays within the bounds of state law prohibiting the broadcasters from carrying propaganda, attempting to influence legislation or engage in political campaigns. Of the 341 respondents answering the question, 218 said the broadcaster stays within the requirement. A total of 123 said it does not, and 259 were unsure.

When it comes to news fairness, respondents gave APT high marks. Among those who watch APT coverage of the state legislature, “PBS NewsHour” and “Capitol Journal,” 158 found coverage to be fair and even-handed, while 73 thought it was unfair or one-sided. A total of 202 said they do not watch APT news programming, and 167 were unsure.

Despite the mixed bag when it comes to political leaning and news fairness, most respondents (54%) said they favored maintaining support for PBS programming, while 18% were against it, and 28% were unsure.

The poll of 600 Alabama citizens was conducted Sept. 20-23. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4%. Known registered voters were interviewed via live phones and SMS, and the survey was weighted to a general population universe, Cygnal said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full letter is available here.

WASHINGTON—A bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats in Congress have introduced the Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act, which aims to bring entertainment productions back to the United States from foreign countries through federal tax incentives.

Following President Trump’s call for Congress to establish a federal production incentive to bring entertainment jobs and production back to America, this bill would establish a 20% base tax credit for qualifying film, television, and visual effects (VFX) projects that are produced in the United States.

U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) introduced the legislation on Sept. 24.

In the House, Representative Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas-01), Representatives Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.-38), Brian Jack (R-Ga.-03), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.-30), David Kustoff (R-Tenn.-08), Judy Chu (D-Calif.-28), Mike Carey (R-Ohio-15), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.-03) introduced companion legislation in the House.

Backers of the legislation included the Motion Picture Association, companies like Paramount and NBCUniversal and a variety of unions.

Those supporters include the American Federation of Musicians, American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP), Coalition for American Production (CAP), CreativeFuture, Directors Guild of America (DGA), FilmUSA, Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA), International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), Motion Picture Association (MPA), Paramount, Producers Guild of America (PGA), Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), Teamsters, Television Academy, Writers Guild of America East (WGAE), and Writers Guild of America West (WGAW) have endorsed the legislation.

“Having worked in a movie theater growing up, I saw early on how films can move and inspire generations of Americans. Films like ‘The Notebook’ bring us to tears, and films like ‘Forrest Gump’ inspire us to see the world differently. That is the power of film, and South Carolina is blessed to serve as the backdrop for both of these iconic American stories,” said Sen. Scott. “We cannot stand by as more and more American film production moves overseas, taking jobs, investment, and an important source of American cultural influence with it. This legislation will create jobs in communities across America, support local economies, and help ensure that the next generation of iconic American films is made right here in America.”

“The Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act would deliver a true gamechanger for American creators, workers, and businesses – a federal incentive that supercharges production at home, fuels jobs and growth in local communities, and makes the United States a more competitive destination for the next generation of great film and television," MPA Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin said in a statement. "There’s a reason everyone from President Trump to a bipartisan group of members in Congress to studios, unions, guilds, and more want to get this done. Passing this legislation could inject $250 billion into the country’s economy and deliver nearly 145,000 new jobs every year across all 50 states. That’s a story we can write together by enacting this bill, to ensure that more stories are crafted, created, and made here in America."

The bill would also provide optional 5% bonus credits that could be stacked on top of the 20% base credit, with the total credit capped at 30%. Bonus credits could be received through:

• Production in rural Opportunity Zones or federally declared disaster zones
• Multi-state productions
• Production is completed by an independent producer
• Film companies that increase their number of domestic productions relative to their previous foreign investment
• The tax credit would exclude live sporting events, sexually explicit material, marketing, daytime-drama shows, award event programming, social media posts, and other non-legacy media productions.

Several states have established their own economic incentives, but the lack of a unified federal incentive has left the United States behind as productions leave for countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, the backers of the legislation argued.

Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists President Sean Astin said that “SAG-AFTRA is proud to partner with our fellow unions, industry and policymakers in a bipartisan effort to rescue the domestic film and television business. The money is being invested, the productions are being made, the jobs are being created, just not in America. This is a jobs bill and that is exactly what our members want to see. We have the infrastructure. We have the crews. We have the talent. Now all we need is a level playing field. We are the storytellers who inform and entertain the world. Let's get back to doing that right here at home. Thank you, Senators Scott and Schiff and Representatives Moran, Sánchez, Friedman, and Jack, for championing this critical legislation,” said

Chairman and CEO of Paramount David Ellison and NBC Universal Entertainment chairman Donna Langley were also among those who backed the bill.

“Paramount fully supports this legislation, and thanks Senator Scott for his bipartisan leadership on this important issue," Ellison said in a statement issued just days after Paramount settled antitrust litigation by making commitments to maintain a certain production levels.

"America’s highly-skilled production workforce— including camera operators, set production designers, editors, visual effects artists, lighting and sound crews, costume and makeup teams, transportation workers filmmakers, and countless others — are critical to our nation’s economy, and have built and powered one of this country’s greatest cultural exports," he added. "We believe now is the time to pursue this important legislation, so we can support our critical production workers and make more films and TV right here at home. Paramount will continue working closely with our union partners and the broader creative industry at every level to help support this effort.”

“A federal incentive that complements existing state programs would help level the playing field, drive economic growth, create high-skill jobs, and ensure more film and television production is made in America by one of the nation's most dynamic industries," added Donna Langley.

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

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

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

The regulator described the items on the agenda as follows:

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

Paramount has reached a settlement with a coalition of 12 attorneys general that would resolve the states' antitrust lawsuit alleging that the $111 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery (Warner Bros.) would harm competition by lowering output and raising prices, hurting both workers and consumers in the process.

Separately the writers unions announced a settlement with Paramount that will prevent writer layoffs at CBS News for five years.

The settlement, which still must be approved by the court, includes a five-year court enforceable commitment to increase film output, a minimum of an additional $1.5 billion commitment to bolster domestic film production, a $47.5 million fund for workers who are impacted by the merger, and restrictions on how the company handles cable negotiations to help keep prices competitive.

In the wake of the settlement, Paramount is likely to move as quickly as possible to close the deal because it had promised to pay $7 million a day to shareholders if the merger didn’t close by Oct. 1.

According to the 12 AGs who brought the suit the settlement includes:

• An Annual Film Release Commitment: Paramount has agreed to a five-year term, where the merged company will commit to release 30 films a year, including 20 wide releases, in the first two years and 32 films a year, with 21 wide releases. in years three, four, and five. Paramount commits to release at least four independent films in each year of the commitment period. The proposed settlement stipulates that if Paramount fails to meet this film output requirement in any year, the company will be required to divest Miramax Studios and must pay $30 million per missed film toward the health care and retirement trust funds associated with the Writers Guild of America (WGA), International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), Directors Guild of America (DGA), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and other unions, toward the Motion Pictures & Television Fund, and to the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) in support of antitrust enforcement.
• Domestic Production: Paramount has agreed to bolster the merged company’s U.S. film production and spend an at least additional $1.5 billion over five years over its 2025 U.S. spending levels. Importantly, this is a baseline. Right now, around 5% of all of Paramount’s production is in the U.S. If a federal film tax credit of at least 20% is passed, production in the U.S. would need to increase to be 20% of all film production for years one and two and at least 30% of all film production for the remaining years. If, in addition to a federal tax credit, a more expansive state film tax credit is also passed in either California or New York, then production investment would need to increase to at least 40% of all film production being in the U.S instead of overseas. In addition, Paramount has committed to follow through on all existing development efforts, which includes major planned investments in New Jersey.
• Independent Film Fund: The merged company will form and operate a fund for purchasing independent films and will make an annual contribution of $5 million per year, for a total of $25 million.
• Protections for Workers: The merged company will commit $47.5 million in a workforce fund over five years for training and career development for workers who are displaced by the merger. The merged company must also honor previously established collective bargaining agreements and bargain in good faith with unions in years to come.
• Cable Agreements: For five years, the merged company must conduct negotiations for Paramount basic cable channels independently from negotiations for Warner Bros. basic cable channels, preserving the existing competitive dynamic between the companies. Preserving competition helps to keep prices down for consumers. The merged company also must continue to offer a free streaming service, like Pluto TV, and maintain its current service and quality. Additionally, the company agrees to create an editorial-independence board for CNN and CBS.
• Ongoing Monitoring: The company also agreed to appointment of an independent monitor to oversee its compliance with this agreement.

Following the announcement of the settlement with the AGs, the Writers Guild of America East and Writers Guild of America West, also announced that they have settled their lawsuit to block the proposed merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery.

“We continue to believe the merger will cause damage to writers and the industry at large," the WGA said in a statement. "Now that the Attorneys General have settled with Paramount, however, as a nonprofit, the WGA must contend with the reality of forging ahead alone, with no backing from government enforcers, with a complex antitrust lawsuit that would cost millions of dollars to pursue through trial. Consequently, we have also settled our lawsuit with an agreement from Paramount to prohibit writer layoffs at CBS News Broadcast for 5 years, and to pay $17.5 million to our health fund along with our attorneys’ fees in the litigation."

"Though we were not successful in blocking the merger, our advocacy brought more attention to the harms that this merger—and others like it—will cause. We will continue to fight the harms of industry consolidation," the statement added.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez also criticized the settlement in a statement: “I am disappointed that this settlement appears to pave the way for yet another massive media consolidation deal that could raise prices for consumers, reduce content diversity, and weaken editorial independence. This settlement does nothing to resolve the FCC’s own unprecedented decision to approve near complete and unchecked indirect foreign ownership of one of America’s largest media companies from some of the most repressive governments in the world. Setting aside that worrisome arrangement, this transaction still represents a troubling new stage of media consolidation, with real consequences for consumers and for a free and independent press. The editorial independence protections included in this settlement remain untested, and there is good reason to be skeptical they will hold up once the ink is dry. Whether these commitments actually protect newsrooms inside CBS and CNN from political, financial, or regulatory pressure, or simply provide cover for further editorial interference, remains to be seen. I will be watching closely to see whether these promises translate into real protections or will be just words on a page.”

More to come as reaction to the deal becomes available.

Multiple reports from Bloomberg, Reuters and others indicate that Paramount has struck a deal with California State Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state attorneys general to settle their antitrust lawsuit against Paramount Skydance’s $111 billion takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery

The settlement, if completed, would stave off a antitrust trial in 2027 and pave the way for the deal to be quickly completed. On Sept. 17, the FCC’s Media Bureau approved foreign ownership waivers that were the last major regulatory hurdle.

Details of the settlement have not been made public but Bloomberg reported that the settlement would create an independent editorial board to oversee CNN and CBS. It also sets output levels for the combined studios’ movie production.

Bloomberg did not report any divestitures of the merged companies’ cable channel portfolio.

The potential deal was quickly criticized by some opponents of the merger, who argued that the concessions were “minor,” “largely unenforceable” and “in some cases promise less than the two companies are already doing as standalone competitors.”

In a statement, Free Press Co-CEO Jessica J. González said “[w]e are disappointed that Attorney General Bonta went back on his promise to enforce the law and protect consumers and workers…Based on all reports, this weak deal contains nothing but unenforceable, empty Paramount promises. It abandons the thousands of creatives and workers who risked speaking out, and the tens of millions of consumers the attorneys general should be fighting for.”

Over the weekend, some prominent Democrats also came out against any settlement with Paramount.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez also criticized the settlement in a statement: “I am disappointed that this settlement appears to pave the way for yet another massive media consolidation deal that could raise prices for consumers, reduce content diversity, and weaken editorial independence. This settlement does nothing to resolve the FCC’s own unprecedented decision to approve near complete and unchecked indirect foreign ownership of one of America’s largest media companies from some of the most repressive governments in the world. Setting aside that worrisome arrangement, this transaction still represents a troubling new stage of media consolidation, with real consequences for consumers and for a free and independent press. The editorial independence protections included in this settlement remain untested, and there is good reason to be skeptical they will hold up once the ink is dry. Whether these commitments actually protect newsrooms inside CBS and CNN from political, financial, or regulatory pressure, or simply provide cover for further editorial interference, remains to be seen. I will be watching closely to see whether these promises translate into real protections or will be just words on a page.”

The settlement would still need to be approved by the judge in the case and would likely face opposition from critics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full ruling is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only exceptions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full TVB filing is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full text of the coalition letter is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full filing is available here.

Other filings on the topic can be accessed here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information is available on the AWARN website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The deadline for reply comments is Sept. 29.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fees will be due by the end of September.

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

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

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