FCC Kills TV Ownership Cap, Claiming Authority Over Limit Set By Congress (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0184881400
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/08/06/1728210/fcc-kills-tv-ownership-cap-claiming-authority-over-limit-set-by-congress
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/trump-fcc-kills-tv-ownership-cap-claiming-authority-over-limit-set-by-congress/
> The Federal Communications Commission [1]voted 2-1 today to eliminate the National Television Ownership Rule, [2]claiming authority to repeal a limit that was set by Congress over 20 years ago . The rule prohibits any single broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39 percent of all TV households in the US. Under Chairman Brendan Carr, the FCC is replacing the rule with a "case-by-case review" of each proposed merger.
>
> "This will empower the FCC to approve deals that promote the public interest while allowing the agency to reject any deals that do not meet that standard," Carr's office said in a press release today. Without the 39 percent rule, broadcasters will be better able to compete against streaming companies that don't face similar limits, Carr's office said.
>
> The change, if not stopped by courts, will make it easier for Carr to allow broadcast mergers that result in more favorable news coverage for President Trump. Carr has consistently threatened to revoke licenses from broadcasters who have drawn Trump's ire, including by ordering an [3]early license review of all ABC-owned stations. Carr said local broadcast TV stations are becoming "undifferentiated passthroughs of national programming produced in Hollywood and New York," and he justified repealing the ownership rule by arguing it will help the stations invest in local news.
"It's worth noting that Republicans with deep firsthand knowledge of this issue also agree the commission cannot do what it is attempting today," said Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, who voted against the decision today. "Former FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly has been unequivocal that the FCC lacks authority to change the cap. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who negotiated the 39 percent compromise, has stressed that Congress intentionally wrote the cap into law to prevent FCC revision. And Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz has said he is 'skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress.' Their consensus reinforces a simple point: Congress set the cap, and only Congress can change it."
Gomez, in addition to arguing that "Congress deliberately enshrined the cap in statute and removed it from the Commission's review process," said removing the cap will hurt local broadcasters. "Digital giants compete for their most valuable programming and advertising, while consolidation pressures at the national level threaten the local reporting and public-safety functions on which communities rely," Gomez said. "But eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from that strain. It just changes who is doing the squeezing. A handful of station-group giants does not represent the wishes of local broadcasters. They are large national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them without much local input. Trading a squeeze from Big Tech for a squeeze from Big Media does nothing to protect the communities this cap was designed to serve."
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-replaces-national-broadcast-ownership-cap
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/trump-fcc-kills-tv-ownership-cap-claiming-authority-over-limit-set-by-congress/
[3] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/07/30/1933258/abc-accuses-fcc-of-attempted-censorship
Crime is the new look for Rapeublicans (Score:3, Insightful)
trump boot-lickers break the law for their master.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see if any mergers/takeovers happen, because anyone attempting it will be gambling that the next Democrat administration (assuming there is one) won't reverse it and force them to break up their media empire.
Could SCOTUS also force it to happen too? Not that it is likely at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
> It will be interesting to see if any mergers/takeovers happen, because anyone attempting it will be gambling that the next Democrat administration (assuming there is one) won't reverse it and force them to break up their media empire.
Undoing M&A is rare, but it can and does happen, but more often specific remedies tend to be used (forcing divestiture of one/more assets, and/or compensation to those impacted by the M&A). And if the agency originally approved the M&A there is going to be a very high bar for reversing that approval.
The large station owner groups can't wait to grow and be able to increase revenue by increasing prices even faster.
In a functioning government, the congress would likely take action against the
What is this TV of which you speak? (Score:1)
I understand the reasoning behind wanting the limit, but does TV actually matter anymore?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What do you think boomers and elderly do during their waking hours?
Re: (Score:2)
Watch all the ads targeting millennials looking for drug/dui defense attorneys.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I watch on broadcast TV is Star Trek TOS while I'm eating dinner. Oh, and the Twilight Zone marathon they have every Fourth of July. I may have watched something else when I was sick once, like maybe Green Acres or Gomer Pyle, but I don't remember. I was feverish.
Re: (Score:2)
> What do you think boomers and elderly do during their waking hours?
They use cable TV. Those on over-the-air TV are generally a socioeconomic group.
Re: What is this TV of which you speak? (Score:2)
Oh look the same claim without support again
Re: (Score:2)
It matters enough that Trump goons are making a deliberate effort to flout Congress's law. I would guess that for the people unwilling to pay for cable, the rule change gives stations a chance to turn viewers into captive audiences for very specific content. You can bet the "equal time" rule is next for the chopping block.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the number of people being thrown off snap, I expect certainly the poorer demographic may be looking at shall we watch cable, or shall we watch OTA(free) and have rice & beans for dinner. I saw a story about AZ where fully half have been turned away. [1]https://finance.yahoo.com/econ... [yahoo.com]
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/arizona-lost-half-snap-users-104500791.html
Re: (Score:3)
Don't fail to see the forest because you are focusing on the trees. What is important is this:
> "The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 today to eliminate the National Television Ownership Rule, claiming authority to repeal a limit that was set by Congress over 20 years ago."
It is one more nail in our democracy in the effort to build an authoritarian regime. By doing this with something that people will say isn't all that important anyway they are cementing the foundation for an idea in the minds of
Re: (Score:2)
> I understand the reasoning behind wanting the limit, but does TV actually matter anymore?
The limitations apply to television, radio and print media collectively. From [1]Ownership [fcc.gov]:
> Based on authority granted by Congress, the FCC sets limits on the number of broadcast stations (radio and TV stations) an entity may own, and on the common ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers.
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/general/ownership
People still watch TV (Score:1)
People still watch TV...?
Ok, I know that was a dumb statement and I know people still watch TV. But seriously though, how much TV do people really watch these days given all the crazy online streaming and other various media platforms that are fighting over our eyeballs for attention...
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised... while people with average modern tech skills all watch streaming, the rest still watch TV. I think the number will gradually go down in one more generation. But until then, they're still around and TV is their friend.
Re: (Score:2)
No joke, there are fewer ads on broadcast TV than on (free) YouTube now. Broadcast averages 14 minutes per hour. YouTube is harder to find hard numbers but most sources imply it's around 20 minutes per hour - A whopping third of the total viewing time.
Of course, that depends on having something worth watching on (you'd likely be surprised how many channels you get, but they still mostly suck); and for those of us not using a GooTube-sponsored browser that breaks ad blocking, with uBlock Origin that figure
Monopolies are legal if the Government allows them (Score:2)
Monopolies are perfectly legal if the government won't do anything about them. This is going to be a fun time.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolies have always been legal. Abusing one is not. It's literally never been against the law to be a monopoly.
Sinclair (Score:1)
Sinclair already owns the vast majority of TV stations. There are endless clips and supercuts of dozens of news anchors saying the EXACT SAME THING verbatim; "articles" that have been sent to every station that are really just propaganda or adverts (or both). The democrats crying is pure bullshit here. They wanted this to. This benefits everyone's donors. It also doesn't really change anything. The propaganda is already flushed though the limited sets of media conglomerate owners. This just allows consolida
Re: (Score:2)
> There are endless clips and supercuts of dozens of news anchors saying the EXACT SAME THING verbatim; "articles" that have been sent to every station that are really just propaganda or adverts (or both).
Lots of local stations read stories practically verbatim off various wire services (AP, Reuters, etc).
You are full of shit. (Score:2)
The democrats crying is pure bullshit here. They wanted this to
A. This is nonsense on stilts. Name one elected Dem who promoted this.
B. Even shitbags like Cruz are saying this is illegal.
This benefits everyone's donors.
C. You seem to believe only elected politicians matter. What about the actual, you know, citizens who pay these government workers?
where they'll defend all the anti-human rights shit that happened to no end
Weird how selective you are about which humans and which rights.
Since rules don't matter (Score:2)
Let the FCC revoke broadcast licenses. Then the stations keep right on broadcasting. What is dear leader going to do, send hit squads to every transmitter site?
Re: Since rules don't matter (Score:2)
Yes. He'll probably send ice to deport the transmitters
This is good here's why (Score:2)
TV was roughly 6 over the air channels and it was regulated monopoly - now its dying and thanks to the internet everyone has infinite channels. Today this rule would be like saying "California, you can't have Netflix because Netflix already reaches 39% of American's, you have to purchase Prime Video instead."
Re: (Score:2)
> TV was roughly 6 over the air channels and it was regulated monopoly - now its dying and thanks to the internet everyone has infinite channels. Today this rule would be like saying "California, you can't have Netflix because Netflix already reaches 39% of American's, you have to purchase Prime Video instead."
You got the impacted party wrong. It's not the end user that would need to go elsewhere; It's the provider that wouldn't be allowed to merge with other giants and/or may need to divest because they outgrew their britches.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the impacted party is correct. The rule is 39% of households covered. Imagine only 39% of states get Netflix and the rest of to go with another company.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an absurd comparison, because the Internet is not a limited spectrum. Your analogy is like arguing that there should be no regulation of airline mergers, because you can always walk or drive. They're not equivalent, they don't have equivalent costs or benefits, and from a legal perspective, they're not even the same market, or at least not meaningfully so.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly the reason I made the comparison, because internet is not limited. It's the law that is now absurd. According to Google only 14.5% of households even have an antennae and antennae viewership as a percentage of watch hours is even less because households have other options (the internet).
Re: (Score:2)
The law is not absurd. About a third of poor people are on metered cell phones for their home Internet connections. OTA TV is free. So consolidation of the OTA spectrum massively reduces access to a diverse panoply of voices for the poorest Americans.
The law wasn't written to protect the top 5% of Americans' ability to get news from a large number of sources. People with wealthy always had that ability.
Re: (Score:2)
Err... people with wealth.
*sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
The marketplace is not OTA TV, it is video delivery. When you look at video delivery OTA TV is probably 1% of watch hours or less. Let's say one company gets the entire monopoly over that 1% of watch hours - have at it. The entire point of the 39% of households rule was to promote diversity of ideas and you can't in any sense have a monopoly over ideas with 1% of watch hours.
Re: (Score:2)
> No, the impacted party is correct. The rule is 39% of households covered. Imagine only 39% of states get Netflix and the rest of to go with another company.
Except this isn't about streaming services on the internet. You're the one that made that bloody analogy. Let's play that out, cause you're still wrong - the impacted party is still the business.
You'd first have to imagine a scenario where media streaming on the internet is a controlled monopoly that is not available for anyone to do (by comparison, I can't legally setup an OTA TV broadcast, nor can anyone but those with a license to do so). Then, since you made the state analogy, imagine that streaming ser
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you agree with me because the whole point is there is no monopoly on the internet, no need to imagine a world without it. The marketplace is video, the delivery method is irrelevant. Broadcast TV used to be a monopoly and now total watch hours of antennae delivered TV is probably less than 1%. Go have at that "monopoly" of 1% of watch hours. The law is ridiculous because it now care about 39% of 1% of the actual marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
> TV was roughly 6 over the air channels and it was regulated monopoly - now its dying and thanks to the internet everyone has infinite channels. Today this rule would be like saying "California, you can't have Netflix because Netflix already reaches 39% of American's, you have to purchase Prime Video instead."
Not at all. TV is still a finite spectrum. There will never be any more over-the-air TV channels than there are now, realistically speaking. Not everyone has high-speed Internet. 7% can't get it at all, at least by the FCC's definition.
Another 16% use their cell phones for Internet, which means their data is likely metered. This number balloons all the way up to [1]34% when you look at low-income Americans [potsandpansbyccg.com].
Those folks don't have access to "infinite channels".
You're right that over-the-air TV is dying be
[1] https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2026/05/07/the-myth-of-cellphone-only-users/
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a good decision in some ways, but it's clearly illegal.
Look at radio... (Score:3)
Look how radio was obliterated when those ownership regulations were lifted. Radio went from a medium that was a social flagbearer to at best something one listens to if every other electronic device is dead, or one has nothing to listen to when out of town.
OTA TV was also dying, but this pretty much will kill it completely.
But in the meantime, a few companies are going to make megabucks, then sell the radio/TV stations for peanuts when the market collapses.
Re: (Score:2)
> But in the meantime, a few companies are going to make megabucks, then sell the radio/TV stations for peanuts when the market collapses.
Not to mention selling and repurposing the spectrum rights.
Re: (Score:2)
That word "obliterated" doesn't mean what you think it does. Either that or you really believe that there are no radio stations. I assure you that radio stations still exist and people still listen to them. Naturally their user share has declined due to first MP3 players then streaming services, but you can still turn on your car radio, listen to music programmed by DJs,, call in to them using your phone, and have a conversation with the DJs on air.
How to measure? (Score:2)
Question guys... I'm asking because I'm clueless. How do you measure the number of viewers when the transmission is free (local TV).
Re: (Score:3)
Surveys, and also people meters [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_meter [wikipedia.org].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_meter
Re: (Score:2)
> Question guys... I'm asking because I'm clueless. How do you measure the number of viewers when the transmission is free (local TV).
According to the law..
"the total number of television households in the Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs) in which the relevant stations are located divided by the total national television households as measured by DMA data at the time of a grant, transfer, or assignment of a license"
Fiat Rex (Score:3)
Lets just cancel Congress and pesky "lawmakers" altogether. It is far too cumbersome to pass a law when we want to do things. They won't even vote when/how they are told to!
Rule by decree!
/s
Wait what? (Score:5, Interesting)
When congress passes a law, it can only be changed by congress. It can interpreted as unconstitutional or it can be unenforced but it remains the law. Nothing about "it was made 20 years ago" changes the fact that congress set a limit.
This should be an open an shut court case to prevent any merger violating that limit and a total slam dunk at that. However, we live in strange days.
Re: (Score:1)
You're making the assumption that everyone with an (R) in front of their name operates in good faith.
TV airwaves for everyone (Score:1)
I just want to make myy own TV channel, so I can talk about tech.. We should be freeing the airwaves, not making it more ,omnopolistic, duh.
Another executive branch power grab (Score:3)
This is just another blatant attempt of the executive branch and it's delegated agencies to take control away from the legislative by ignoring the law.
This is blatently illegal (Score:2)
Technocrats at the FCC have no authority to countermand the law. The law is explicit not just about license grants / mergers ..etc on the front end but also what happens once you've exceeded it.
"(e) National television multiple ownership rule.
(1) No license for a commercial television broadcast station shall be granted, transferred or assigned to any party (including all parties under common control) if the grant, transfer or assignment of such license would result in such party or any of its stockholders,
Re: (Score:2)
> Technocrats at the FCC have no authority to countermand the law.
It is not the technocrats, it is the FCC commissioners (who are nominated by the president, and confirmed by the senate) that sets the policies. The technocrats administer the rules that the commissioners approve. While some of the staff (at least the commissions lawyers) explained that this proposed rule was possibly not in compliance with the existing law, the commissioners still approved the changes. It will surprise no one if the change ends up being litigated.
Blah, blah, blah... Trump (Score:1)
It's always a Trump issue. Stop and think for a minute. That rule was setup when TV viewing was restricted to a big box in the living room and gated by the geography where you reside. Now, TV is viewed more on mobile devices than the big box and you can turn to streaming too.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's always a Trump issue. Stop and think for a minute. That rule was setup when TV viewing was
Let's stop and think for a minute. It isn't "That rule was..." but actually "That law was...".
> restricted to a big box in the living room and gated by the geography where you reside. Now, TV is viewed more on mobile devices than the big box and you can turn to streaming too.
If you don't like the law... Perhaps you think it is outdated or backwards you can petition lawmakers to vote to change the law. You don't get to do as you please just because your name is Trump or anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
> "It's always a Trump issue."
Never let it be said that the Trumsterfire isn't a walking bag of issues.
Watching the rich flail around (Score:2)
Nobody watches broadcast TV anymore and they know it. Nobody is really going to care - but later, when they're going after more important regulation they'll be able to point to this as precedent.
This looks to me like big business striking while they know congress is fully captured to grease the skids for more big money fuckery.
If I was into seizing as much power for the executive from congress as I could, I can't think of a much better move than this exact sort of thing.
Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:5, Insightful)
Another democracy safeguard dismantled
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Does anyone actually "watch television", in the form this article is referring to, anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
According to Nielson, yes: "OTA homes represented 14.5% of U.S. TV households"
Re:Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:4, Insightful)
> According to Nielson, yes: "OTA homes represented 14.5% of U.S. TV households"
And they probably skew overwhelmingly into the elderly demographic. ... and, for that matter, mostly voted for the wannabe-dictator-in-chief whose minions are trying to pull this sort of garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not age, is socioeconomic. Your political rant is nonsense.
Re: Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
[1]https://www.nielsen.com/insigh... [nielsen.com]
Scroll down to just above the text, "Increasing connectivity among".
OTA no SVOD: Median age 63, Median income $24.2k
OVA + SVOD + vMVPD: Median age 53, Median income $75.8k
FWIW, I've seen better data on it, but there's a reference point at least.
[1] https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2024/beyond-big-data-the-audience-watching-over-the-air/
Re: Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:2)
What that says is that most of the OTA viewers at both high and low income levels average over 50... So yes, it's old people
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ask for a citation and then not read it?
It presented 3 categories, and none of those were people that did NOT have OTA access. As I noted, I've seen better data, but those with multiple streaming services were those with significantly higher incomes, and those who ONLY had OTA were by far the lowest incomes. Age was in the same ballpark for all three groups (63, 48, 53).
Re: (Score:2)
> Like with an antenna?
There were (are ?) over-the-air digital receivers that can connect to TVs without such built-ins.
Re: Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:2)
I haven't looked at this in a while, but broadcasting over the air allows a station to force the local cable company to carry at least one of it's substations. So the consolation of broadcast ownership will affect cable subscribers as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You also need to include cable TV subscribers, which is where the majority of network TV viewers are these days.
Re: (Score:2)
> Does anyone actually "watch television", in the form this article is referring to, anymore?
I am an n=1, but we are a hybrid home. OTA for the networks and live sports (free!), then a few streaming subscriptions ad-free for everything else. Mostly just the occasional tornado warning and football game for OTA, to be honest. I would watch more but I hate hate HATE paying for someone to serve me ads.
Re: (Score:2)
> Does anyone actually "watch television", in the form this article is referring to, anymore?
Yes, broadcast television is better than it has ever been. There was a huge spike in broadcast viewers years ago when cable started imploding.
Re: Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:2)
Even if this doesnâ(TM)t matter to the reach of broadcast, these companies also create/control a lot of streaming content.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes all the time. Using a Tablo DVR
Yes, Congress should be more care wrt delegation (Score:1)
> Another democracy safeguard dismantled
Yes, it is dangerous for Congress to delegate regulatory authority to bureaucrats.
Re: (Score:1)
RTFS - they explicitly didn't.
Re: (Score:1)
> RTFS - they explicitly didn't.
That’s an opinion, this incident would NOT be the first time a regulatory agency interpreted legislation differently than the authors. Believing they were granted more authority than some claim. That’s one of the danger’s of such delegation, imprecise wording.
Re: Yes, Congress should be more care wrt delegati (Score:2)
interestingly, the 2004 law *increased* the limit. but yes it was very explicit.
Re: Yes, Congress should be more care wrt delegati (Score:2)
You're talking about the opposite side of the relationship. You literally couldn't be any further off topic and still be covering the same subject.
Re: (Score:2)
> Another democracy safeguard dismantled
Not dismantled (yet anyway), but certainly another ignored by this administration. I imagine this will get challenged in court and the FCC will probably lose, especially as the limit was explicitly specified in a statue passed by Congress. The (currently) republican-controlled congress could change this before the Paramount case gets into court, but that's a long shot, unless they squeeze it into some unrelated must-pass bill.