FCC Reminds Broadcasters Of Their Public Interest Obligations

WASHINGTON—In a wide-ranging Public Notice reminding broadcasters of their public interest obligations, the Federal Communications Commission stressed that “spectrum auctions routinely bring in billions of dollars for the same spectrum broadcasters use for free” and insisted that the agency has the authority to investigate, fine and potentially remove broadcast licenses for violations of broadcast public interest obligations.

Those public interest obligations include the requirement that "broadcasters are also prohibited from engaging in news distortion," the agency noted.

Though not signed and not explicitly issued in response to any given criticism, the document amounts to an unusual public defense from the GOP-led commission for the regulatory approach taken under FCC Chair Brendan Carr. As previously reported, he has been criticized by Democrats in Congress, former FCC officials and FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez for attempting to use the agency's enforcement powers to limit "free speech" and chill broadcast news coverage that is critical of the Trump administration.

“Federal law requires broadcasters to comply with a basic and fundamental obligation—they must operate in the public interest,” the public notice argued. “Congress first enshrined this concept in the law nearly 100 years ago, and it charged the FCC with the responsibility of ensuring that broadcasters only obtain and maintain a license to the extent they are operating in a manner that serves the `public interest, convenience, and necessity.’”

In addition to its statutory authority to enforce “public interest” requirements, the Public Notice argued that “spectrum is a finite public resource bound by the limits of physics” and an extremely valuable asset.

“Spectrum auctions routinely bring in billions of dollars for the same spectrum broadcasters use for free,” the agency reminded broadcasters, adding that “proceeds from the auction for broadcast television spectrum that was reallocated for wireless broadband use yielded $19.8 billion in revenue, including $10.05 billion for winning broadcast bidders and more than $7 billion to be deposited to the U.S. Treasury for deficit reduction.”

“In exchange, broadcasters are required to operate in the public interest of the communities they serve,” the agency noted. “It is this service as a public trustee—and the corresponding obligation to offer programming responsive to the needs and interests of the local communities they are licensed to serve—that makes broadcasters unique and distinguishes them from other programmers. It is an obligation that broadcasters take on voluntarily, in exchange for the privilege of holding a license to operate using the public airwaves.”

The Public Notice also laid a variety of legal arguments affirming the regulator’s controversial conclusion that it has the power to ensure that broadcast programming is in the public interest.

“Programming decisions by broadcasters must be made in service of the public and be responsive to the needs of the local community they are licensed to serve, not the private interests of national networks,” the FCC insisted.

“No broadcaster has a `right’ to use the public spectrum,” the Notice stated, adding that “indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that certain FCC regulatory efforts in furtherance of its statutory mandate `enhance rather than abridge the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment.’” and that “the courts have recognized that there are limits on broadcasters’ First Amendment rights.”

The FCC concluded that “the mere denial of a license `because ‘the public interest’ requires it ‘is not a denial of free speech.’”

“Where the Commission finds that a broadcaster has failed to serve the public interest, the Commission may take appropriate action, including enforcement action,” require a licensee to file an early license renewal application,” as it has done with ABC’s stations, and apply the “public interest” rules when considering mergers or station sales.

As examples of the FCC’s authority to regulate content, the Notice cited its “main studio” rule, which is intended to ensure service obligations were met by placing a station’s production center within the community it served, and its program origination” rule, which required stations to originate a minimum percentage of its non-network programming from its main studio or elsewhere within its community of license.

“The purpose of the rule was to encourage locally-oriented programming in furtherance of the Commission’s public interest standard and localism mandate,” the Notice argued.

It also highlighted rules relating to the station’s online public inspection file issues/programs lists describing and insisted that “broadcasters are also prohibited from engaging in news distortion, must provide equal opportunity to political candidates, and are prohibited from airing obscene, indecent, and profane content.”

“The Commission will continue to engage in a robust review of applications to ensure compliance with our rules and determine whether broadcasters have met their obligation to operate in the public interest,” the Notice concluded. “We encourage broadcasters to review their current practices and confirm that they fully align with their statutory public interest obligation.”

In the final sentence, the Notice also stressed that the agency determination to both investigate public interest violations and enforce those rules in ways that could involve taking away broadcast licenses.

“The Commission will not hesitate to exercise its statutory authority to ensure that broadcasters either fulfill their public interest obligation or provide the privilege of being a broadcast licensee to someone that will fulfill that duty,” the Notice stated.

Carr also reiterated the agency's authority in a post on X:

In response, Commissioner Gomez complained that "`public interest' does not mean this administration's interests. Broadcasters should ignore these latest threats and stiffen their spine."