FCC Kills TV Ownership Cap, Claiming Authority Over Limit Set By Congress (arstechnica.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: 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. 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 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."
"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 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."
Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:4, Insightful)
Another democracy safeguard dismantled
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
According to Nielson, yes: "OTA homes represented 14.5% of U.S. TV households"
Re:Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:5, 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)
Re: Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:2)
Did you provide a citation and not understand it? The median ages of all OTA viewers are high. We don't need a median age of non OTA viewers because the national median age is between 38.7 and 39.5 years. You know there are numbers other than those numbers, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you provide a citation and not understand it? The median ages of all OTA viewers are high. We don't need a median age of non OTA viewers because the national median age is between 38.7 and 39.5 years.
This is the most embarrassing non-sequitur I've heard anyone make in at least a week.
Re: (Score:2)
I provided a citation that I believe backs the, "Its not age, is socioeconomic." If you want to keep saying otherwise, can you provide a citation that backs, "And they probably skew overwhelmingly into the elderly demographic"? I don't buy it, but you seem pretty confident about it.
P.S. the age range you provided includes newborns on up.
Re: Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That's also the only way to save Capitalism from Monopolists.
Re: Another democracy safeguard dismantled (Score:1)
How?
How does the current regulation 'protect' anything?
Let's say there's a network, we'll call it BOB. The BOB network currently owns local stations in major markets that add up to 39% of US households, the current limit. By preventing the BOB network from owning a broadcast station in another, smaller market - what evil are people protected from? As a note, BOB currently has a nationwide network of affiliate stations that carry BOB network content, and the BOB network is carried on all local cable companie
Re: (Score:1)
RTFS - they explicitly didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
They did when they created the FCC and gave the Executive the power to appoint its chair.
Re: Yes, Congress should be more care wrt delegati (Score:2)
No they didn't, because Congress set the limit by statute and did not give the FCC authority to override it. This isn't complicated but you're still getting it wrong.
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)
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.
I am discussing the illness, not the symptom. The illness, the cause, is Congress delegating — often too casually — to bureaucrats.
This is not a new problem, its not a new symptom. Both parties play these games and take advantage of Congress’ laxity when they have the executive branch.
Re: Yes, Congress should be more care wrt delegat (Score:2)
You are talking about something which didn't happen.
Again.
Weird habit.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about something which didn't happen.
Nope. We have an ongoing issue agency overreach. The overreach cited merely changes with administrations. Both share the same core problem, Congress being to vague or delegating too much.
Re: Yes, Congress should be more care wrt delegati (Score:2)
interestingly, the 2004 law *increased* the limit. but yes it was very explicit.
Crime is the new look for Rapeublicans (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect a letter from a few congresscritters mentioning "Contempt of Congress" will soon be delivered. A year in jail would make it hard to enforce their illegal decision.
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: What is this TV of which you speak? (Score:2)
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)
Oh look the same claim without support again
The age claim also offered no references. And it is debunked in the other thread.
Re: What is this TV of which you speak? (Score:2)
No, it isn't. I proved in the other thread that OTA viewers, especially OTA alone, have a median age DECADES older than the general population. Since that population also includes them, they skew it older, not younger, which makes you more wrong and not less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This Boomer (Generation Jones at that) is out of range of OTA TV. Also there is no cable service here. And I gave up a satellite over a decade ago.
Hence my question. Someone else posted that OTA TV households are only 14% of the population. So again, what difference does it make?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 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.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Adblock still works 100% on youtube in a browser.
Of course, appy appers can't stop the ads, but they deserve it. Hang up and drive!
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The democrats crying is pure bullshit here. They wanted this to. This benefits everyone's donors.
While treating "Republicans" as a politically homogeneous block is probably reasonably fair and accurate, assuming that the same is true of Democrats may lead you far astray.
The Dems who elected Abdul El-Sayed, Zoran Mamdani, and other progressives are an entirely different beast than diet MAGA AIPAC cucktards like Hakeem Schumer and Chuck Jeffries. And no, that swapping of surnames was not a mistake.
Most of today's up-and-coming Democrats have no patience with the kind of shit described in TFS.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
According to Nielsen it is 19.2%
https://www.nielsen.com/data-c... [nielsen.com]
The entire point of the 39% of households rule
39% is the LAW, not a rule or suggestion.
to promote diversity of ideas and you can't in any sense have a monopoly over ideas with 1% of watch hours.
Your conclusions are based on assumptions that are fatally incongruent with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must realize the 19.2% "TV Watch Time" just counts very specifically produced TV Shows, not streaming video. Streaming is way far beyond just what's listed on IMDB. Nielsen seriously has YouTube barely beating out Disney for this, are you kidding me? YouTube easily have 200 times the watch time of Disney.
Please provide any credible relevant citations to support your assertions on the 1% and 200x claims. My understanding is watch hours is the time spent watching a given platform not some arbitrary undefined subset of content on each platform.
Netflix and YouTube are known independently to have roughly similar watch hours.
https://www.digital-i.com/news... [digital-i.com]
Your claims and understanding of what is being counted seem to not even be plausible.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree that TV OTA was (is) a regulated monopoly, dying, and we can get more stations via the Internet; Just thought the analogy was off and got carried away, sorry :-)
If they were to update it for today, they'd also change the "reaches" aspect for a more appropriate gauge, like percent of total viewing hours. Doesn't seem as crazy then: "Netflix, you can't have Hulu because Hulu already serves 39% of the content watched in America, but you can buy Fandango if you'd like."
OTA is more like 14% though,
Re: (Score:2)
How many people watch the local news station on cable or YouTube? Those numbers have to be added to the over the air viewers. Here, where there's no reception or cable, I watch the local news on YouTube. Much rather watch it on a medium that I don't have to worry about going over the monthly quota.
Re: (Score:3)
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 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
Re: (Score:3)
It may be a good decision in some ways, but it's clearly illegal.
Look at radio... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
How to measure? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
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)
Another executive branch power grab (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody watches broadcast TV anymore and they know it.
A statement easily proven wrong.
https://www.nielsen.com/data-c... [nielsen.com]
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.
This is really just pointless posturing by partisan hacks. The FCC is assured a loss in court.
Double-standard (Score:2)
Morons forgot they will not always be in power. (Score:2)
While the plutocrats destroying capitalism are having orgasms about changing the rule to let people with 55% market control merge, wait till the Democrats get back in power.
Suddenly 39% will not be enough and the new FCC will demand that no mergers if they even have 31% of market controlled.