Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- This will be remembered in history as a major test of whether we turn from a Republic to an Empire. If the executive can successfully override Congressional law, it's no longer a democracy.by 0xbadcafebee
- 48927851 | FCC to repeal 39% TV ownership cap in boost for Trump-friendly news orgs | https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/fcc-to-repeal-39... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48927851
- > In a 2-1 vote, the FCC repealed a 22-year-old rule holding that a company cannot own stations that reach more than a combined 39% of the U.S. television audience.
This seems like a very odd rule. What about things like CNN? Aren't they available to 100% of households?
- This is about over-the-air/broadcast stations (e.g., ABC/NBC/CBS affiliates), not cable stations like CNN.by warkdarrior
- The FCC mainly regulates broadcast. CNN is cable. Also, there's a difference between a station being in more than 39% of households and being 39% of the total market. Other stations still compete with CNN.by Finnucane
- Broadcast bandwidth is a limited resource, so it’s subject to special rules to ensure it’s fairly distributed in the public interest. It’s true that the rules aren’t nearly as important as they were when non-broadcast news was harder to find, although that doesn’t give the criminals in charge of the FCC a right to ignore the law.
- What could possibly go wrong?by gcanyon
- A necessary tool to manufacture consent in the feudalist society we're speed running towardsby pyaamb
- This does not seem to undo caps on ownership within broadcast markets, though? That seems like a more sensible cap to me. Of course, if Congress made the cap and didn't give authority to the FCC to adjust it, they shouldn't be trying. But I'm not familiar with the statutes involved.by limagnolia
- In the early 2000’s analog public TV broadcasts were turned off in the Netherlands. The only way to receive the publicly funded channels was through a commercial company requiring a subscription to a digital service. I learned a lot that time.by thenthenthen
- I do think this is an interesting topic. You can take the perspective that the government shouldn't have a monopoly on approving who can communicate over the airwaves so long as they aren't committing a crime and also shouldn't be able to outcompete companies trying to make a profit.
At the same time, in a country with many competing localities, radio stations, public broadcast TV, university channels, etc like the US it is quite nice so long as it's balanced. I think in the US it is a legal requirement that any licensed broadcasts legally meet some bar as being "in service to the public". Many companies have a similar philosophy and see themselves as doing a good thing by serving the public, while running a sustainable business at the same time. Not all companies, though.
That's not to say we haven't seen garbage broadcast over the airwaves that I wouldn't consider to be in service to the public, but on average it's alright.
What was Netherlands' reasoning for doing this?
by CMay - Brendan Carr will need to go to prison too, I suppose. There’s nothing in the universe of an argument for why he should be allowed to overturn the will of Congress here, he’s just a petty criminal who doesn’t think he has to follow the rules. 2029 is gonna be a tough year.
- He will be pardoned by trump before the latter leaves the office. There will be LOTS of people pardoned by trump.
I immigrated from a very poor, military-ruled country to the US more than 20 years ago. It is very sad to see the democratic system and the rule of law eroding in the US. All the mistakes that I observed and lived through in my former country are being practiced in the US these days.
- Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today.
In exchange, we have a great deal of spectrum tied up for terrestrial TV, much of which goes to running infomercials or else is surreptitiously leased for terrestrial data broadcasts. And the government gets to decide to regulate it so it becomes inherently politicised - like favouring certain owners.
Realistically - this spectrum should simply be reassigned for IP based services, with perhaps some set aside for non profit / educational uses, some for commercial, etc.
(Radio is pretty much the same boat but I can see a case to be made for keeping some analog FM radio broadcasts. The 6MHz per channel for TV is insane.)
by trollbridge - This analysis doesn't pass the sniff test. The presence of cable, satellite, or internet access says nothing about broadcast TV viewership. This is ownership of the content creation of local stations, not just the broadcast towers. Those stations have a presence on social media and streaming services.by mulmen
- > but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone.
Why are you bundling all those things together? The only thing we care about here is cable or satellite TV for your argument.
by dyauspitr - Irrelevant? I was under the impression cord cutting is pretty common. If you want to watch live sports or the news, you need CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX. We use a MoHu antenna in the attic.
- > It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today.
Fairly wrong/irrelevant metric. Lots of people subscribe to Netflix and watch OTA broadcasts.
Lots of people stick to a Plex membership just because of its DVR capability - that's for broadcast TV.
Lots of DVR and adjacent products out there on the market for people who watch broadcast TV.
I wouldn't dream of getting a cable subscription when I can get so much good content for free. Streaming fills the rest.
by BeetleB - Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant.
The people who watch it vote in numbers far out of proportion to their peers. Nobody would bother to capture the industry if it weren't worthwhile.
by CamperBob2 - > Realistically - this spectrum should simply be reassigned for IP based services, with perhaps some set aside for non profit / educational uses, some for commercial, etc.
They did this in the US already, three times.
In 1983, channels 70 to 83 were taken for mobile phones. In 2008, rf channels 52-69 were reassigned, and 2016, rf 38-51 were reassigned. rf 37 is reserved for radio astronomy.
by toast0 - > this spectrum should simply be reassigned for IP based services, with perhaps some set aside for non profit / educational uses, some for commercial, etc.
We've got internet, but no cable. So we still watch over-the-air TV, though it's mostly PBS at this point (which is non profit). Also listen to FM radio - mostly NPR, a jazz station and a classical station - all also non-profit.
by UncleOxidant - > Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable,
It's not that people are literally watching these on over the air digital TV antenna systems, but that if you have a "Broadcast TV" station in a certain market, it becomes carried by default on cable systems, direct to home satellite satellite dish systems, and regional FTTH providers' last-mile cable-tv-equivalent products.
Look at for example how all the Seattle TV stations are carried on Comcast or Astound's networks.
by walrus01 - These laws, which exist in a similar way in Europe, intend to prevent media control by closed groups to take over democracy.
To be honest, scraping them on broadcast TV will probably have little influence, even though in the wrong direction, because TV is no longer the media with the most influence.
The real failure is that no one cared to regulate ownership of digital medias, i.e. social networks, Youtube, etc. These have shown documented examples of influencing elections directly.
by harrouet - Didn't the supreme court recently overturn the Chevron Doctrine?
Doesn't that mean agencies like this are not free to set their own rules when a law is ambiguous?
And isnt the cap on number of households reached actually codified unambiguously in federal law?
Seems to me like this should not be allowed to happen.
Let me know if I am wrong.
by ilovetux - The difference in this case is that the victims are the general public, who don't even own a single lobbyist and can be safely ignored.by jackb4040
- Don’t worry, the deeply principled conservative justices will never allow some random bureaucrats to legislate.by Spooky23
- The law isn't ambiguous.by Finnucane
- Well, you see, under the current administration, everything is allowed.by YeahThisIsMe
- > Doesn't that mean agencies like this are not free to set their own rules when a law is ambiguous?
Agencies can say whatever they want but courts are not required to defer to them when this inevitably goes to a lawsuit.
by curt15 - If this Baltimore Sun article is accurate, it's worse than that as it sounds like the FCC is overriding a law passed by Congress and not just (re)setting a rule.
> The 39% cap was established by Congress in 2004.
1. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communicatio...
by disposition2