Comments on 39% National Television Ownership Cap, UHF Discount, Marketplace (17-318)
Summary of Comments filed through the end of the Comment Period, which ended on August 4th, 2025
I. Introduction
On June 18, 2025, the FCC Media Bureau released a Public Notice seeking to refresh the record in its proceeding reviewing the 39% national television ownership cap (MB Docket No. 17-318). The proceeding examines Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission’s rules, which limits a single entity from owning television stations that reach more than 39% of the national audience, and also considers the associated 50% audience reach discount for UHF stations. Citing the fact that the previous comment cycle closed in 2018, the Bureau invited public comment on new information, analysis, and proposals related to the evolution of the video programming marketplace, the competitive position of broadcast television, the ongoing validity of the rule's policy justifications, and any relevant legal developments that have occurred since the record was last open.
II. Issues and Arguments
A. Arguments Regarding the Commission’s Legal Authority
A significant portion of the record focused on the Commission’s legal authority to alter the 39% cap. Opponents of deregulation argued that the FCC lacks the authority to change the limit, contending that Congress set the 39% figure in statute in the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act and explicitly removed the matter from the Commission’s quadrennial review authority. These parties asserted that only Congress can now change the cap and that any unilateral action by the FCC would violate the Major Questions Doctrine [Comment, Newsmax; Comment, Michael Ravnitzky; Comment, Christopher Terry, et al.; Comment, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC; Comment, Free State Foundation; Comment, National Hispanic Media Coalition; Comment, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association; Comment, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America; Comment, Free Press; Comment, CPAC Foundation Center for Regulatory Freedom].
Conversely, proponents of deregulation argued that the Commission retains full authority to modify or repeal its own rules under the Communications Act. They contended that the 2004 law only directed the FCC to modify its rules to change the percentage; it did not amend the Communications Act itself or strip the agency of its underlying authority. These parties asserted that the Commission has an obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act to adapt its rules to changed circumstances [Comment, The E.W. Scripps Company; Comment, Nexstar Media Inc.; Comment, ABC Television Affiliates Association, et al.; Comment, National Association of Broadcasters].
B. Arguments for Modifying or Eliminating the National Ownership Cap
Broadcasters and several other stakeholders advocated for the relaxation or complete elimination of the national ownership cap, framing it as an existential issue for the industry.
Competition with Unregulated Platforms: The primary argument was that the cap is an anachronistic, asymmetric regulation that hobbles local broadcasters in their competition against unconstrained national and global competitors, including streaming services and Big Tech platforms like Google's YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon. Filers cited Nielsen data showing broadcast viewership has fallen to historic lows while streaming platforms dominate viewership and capture a disproportionate share of advertising revenue [Notice Of Exparte, National Association of Broadcasters; Comment, Entravision Communications Corporation; Comment, Trinity Broadcasting Network; Comment, Univision Communications, Inc.; Comment, Fox Television Stations, LLC; Comment, The E.W. Scripps Company; Comment, Sinclair, Inc.; Comment, Nexstar Media Inc.; Comment, ABC Television Affiliates Association, et al.; Comment, National Association of Broadcasters].
Enhancing Localism: Proponents argued that the original justification for the cap—preserving localism by balancing power between networks and affiliates—is obsolete. They contended that greater national scale is now necessary to fund investments in local news, public affairs programming, and emergency information. Several station groups pointed to their own track records of increasing local news hours post-acquisition as evidence that scale enhances localism [Comment, Century Egg Credit; Comment, Fox Television Stations, LLC; Comment, The E.W. Scripps Company; Comment, Sinclair, Inc.; Comment, Nexstar Media Inc.; Comment, Center for American Rights].
Strengthening Affiliate Bargaining Power: The Affiliates Associations and Scripps argued that the balance of power has shifted dramatically in favor of the national networks, which now compete with their own affiliates via direct-to-consumer streaming services and extract high reverse retransmission consent fees. They contended that affiliates need greater scale to regain leverage in negotiations with the networks [Comment, The E.W. Scripps Company; Comment, ABC Television Affiliates Association, et al.].
Promoting Investment: Entravision argued that the cap, combined with the FCC’s restrictive attribution rules, stifles necessary capital investment in the broadcast sector [Comment, Entravision Communications Corporation].
C. Arguments for Retaining the National Ownership Cap
A broad coalition of public interest groups, civil rights organizations, labor unions, content creators, and pay-TV providers urged the Commission to retain the 39% cap.
Harm to Localism and Viewpoint Diversity: Opponents argued that further consolidation would not foster localism but would instead lead to the homogenization of content, the spread of centrally produced propaganda, a reduction in viewpoint diversity, and the elimination of local newsroom jobs, creating "news deserts" [Opposition, Scott Eugene; Comment, Documentary Producers Alliance; Reply To Comments, One Ministries, Inc.; Comment, Free Press, et al.; Comment, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America]. They pointed to the radio industry as a cautionary tale of how deregulation led to debt-laden companies and diminished local service [Comment, Newsmax; Comment, Common Frequency, Inc.].
Harm to Minority and Independent Ownership: Civil rights groups highlighted data showing "abysmally low" levels of media ownership by minorities and women, arguing that eliminating the cap would allow large groups to acquire the few remaining independent and minority-owned stations, further decreasing diversity [Comment, One Ministries, Inc.; Comment, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC; Comment, National Hispanic Media Coalition; Comment, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, et al.].
Increased Consumer Costs: Pay-TV providers and their allies argued that greater broadcaster consolidation would increase station groups' bargaining power in retransmission consent negotiations, resulting in higher fees that are inevitably passed on to consumers and jeopardize the viability of smaller rural providers [Notice Of Exparte, Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC, et al.; Comment, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association; Comment, The American Television Alliance; Comment, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association].
Broadcaster Financial Health: Several filers disputed the industry's claims of an "existential crisis," presenting financial data showing large broadcast groups enjoying record distribution revenues and high profit margins. They argued that broadcasters' debt loads are self-inflicted and not a justification for deregulation [Comment, Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC (d/b/a altafiber); Comment, Newsmax; Comment, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications workers of America; Comment, Free Press].
D. Counterproposals and Conditional Deregulation Frameworks
Several parties proposed alternative or conditional approaches to modifying the rule.
The "Social Contract" Framework: Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories (altafiber) and Hawaiian Telcom Services Company proposed that any broadcaster receiving a waiver of the cap should enter into a 7-year "social contract." This would require the broadcaster to commit to a schedule of retransmission consent fee reductions that must be passed through to consumers, along with commitments to localism and honoring existing retrans agreements of acquired stations [Notice Of Exparte, Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC, et al.; Comment, Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC (d/b/a altafiber)].
Pairing Deregulation with Must-Carry Obligations: One Ministries, Inc. (OMI) proposed that any relaxation of the ownership cap be conditioned on the FCC granting must-carry rights on virtual MVPDs (vMVPDs) to Class A television stations to ensure the survival of independent and diverse voices [Comment, One Ministries, Inc.].
Other Conditions: The American Television Alliance suggested that if the cap is relaxed, the Commission should impose remedial conditions such as prohibiting blackouts during major events and banning minimum penetration clauses in carriage agreements [Comment, The American Television Alliance]. Century Egg Credit suggested that consolidating station groups could be required to commit to minimum local programming thresholds [Comment, Century Egg Credit].
E. Arguments Regarding the UHF Discount
There was a broad consensus among parties on both sides of the ownership cap debate that the UHF discount is a "technologically obsolete" relic of the analog television era. Filers argued that in the digital era, UHF spectrum is technically superior to VHF, meaning the discount no longer has a rational basis and serves only to mask the true market concentration of large station groups, allowing them to circumvent the 39% cap. The overwhelming majority of commenters addressing the issue called for its immediate elimination [Comment, K.M. Richards; Comment, Michael Ravnitzky; Comment, Newsmax; Comment, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC; Comment, National Hispanic Media Coalition; Comment, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America; Comment, Free Press; Comment, CPAC Foundation Center for Regulatory Freedom]. As a counterproposal, K.M. Richards Programming Services suggested replacing the UHF discount with a two-tiered VHF discount to compensate stations operating on technically disadvantaged VHF channels [Comment, K.M. Richards].
F. Arguments Concerning Procedural Matters and the Scope of Review
Several filers raised procedural objections or argued that the scope of the proceeding was too narrow. A group of academics contended that the proceeding was improper, as any changes to ownership rules should be conducted within a formal Quadrennial Review, not a standalone record refresh [Comment, Christopher Terry, et al.]. The Future Film Coalition argued the review was "too narrow" for failing to address the market power of unregulated streaming platforms [Comment, Future Film Coalition]. Sinclair, Inc. urged the Commission to coordinate with the Department of Justice to ensure antitrust analysis of broadcast mergers uses up-to-date market definitions [Comment, Sinclair, Inc.].
VI. Conclusion
The filings submitted in response to the Media Bureau's Public Notice reveal a deeply polarized debate over the future of the national television ownership cap. Broadcasters and their allies argue that complete repeal of the rule is a matter of urgent necessity, required to achieve the scale needed to compete with dominant, unregulated technology and streaming companies and to sustain local journalism. They assert the Commission possesses clear legal authority to repeal what they see as an outdated and harmful regulation.
In direct opposition, a coalition of public interest advocates, labor unions, content creators, and pay-TV providers contends that the cap remains an essential safeguard for localism, ownership diversity, and competition. They argue that further consolidation would harm consumers, workers, and independent voices while enriching a few large media companies. This coalition largely maintains that the Commission lacks the legal authority to raise the congressionally set 39% limit. While disagreement on the cap itself is stark, there is a near-unanimous view across all stakeholder categories that the associated UHF discount is a technically obsolete rule that should be eliminated. The record also contains several novel proposals for conditional deregulation, linking any relief for broadcasters to specific public interest commitments and consumer protections.
Individual Summaries in Chronological Order:
Early comments reflected concerns about media consolidation's effect on localism and news integrity. An individual filer, Scott Eugene, opposed removing ownership restrictions, arguing that consolidation allows ideological agendas to permeate local news. He cited the 2018 incident where Sinclair Broadcast Group reportedly required its stations to air centrally produced editorial content. Eugene contended that local newsrooms are a "firewall" against propaganda and suggested exploring public funding for local journalism as an alternative to further consolidation [Opposition, Scott Eugene, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1062025597038/1].
Adding another dimension to the opposition, One Ministries, Inc. (OMI) expressed concern that relaxing the ownership rule would decrease ownership diversity among religious, minority, and women-owned stations. OMI argued that the FCC's failure to update must-carry rules to apply to vMVPDs has placed independent stations under economic distress, creating pressure to sell to large companies like Nexstar. As a remedy, OMI proposed that the FCC should grant must-carry rights to Class A television stations concurrently with any relaxation of the ownership cap. It argued this would preserve diverse and independent voices by adding the 383 existing Class A stations to the Table of Allotments, a position it noted was previously supported by former Chairman Ajit Pai and the National Association of Religious Broadcasters (NRB) [Comment, One Ministries, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10620147025121/1].
Shifting the debate, an investment firm, Century Egg Credit, registered its support for eliminating ownership restrictions, framing consolidation as the key to reviving localism. The firm argued that the broadcast industry is structurally challenged and that only by achieving "local scale" through M&A can station groups amortize the costs of reinvesting in differentiated, local content—what it called the "only defensible moat" broadcasters have against large technology companies. Century Egg Credit contended that modern, lower-cost production tools and multi-platform distribution make this localism strategy financially viable, suggesting that cost synergies from consolidation could fund the necessary investments. The filing, which included a detailed financial analysis of the broadcast sector and praised Commissioner Brendan Carr's deregulatory approach, proposed that the FCC could require station groups to commit to minimum local programming thresholds or public interest disclosures as a condition of consolidation [Comment, Century Egg Credit, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1062275754269/1].
Another individual filer, Charles D. Young, also argued for eliminating the 39% cap to "level the playing field" with nationwide cable, satellite, and streaming services. He posited that broadcast consolidation could mirror the benefits of consolidation in the cellular industry, leading to expanded free over-the-air services and investment in Next-Gen TV. While supporting elimination of the national cap, which would render the UHF discount "irrelevant," Young suggested that a cap on the number of stations in a single market or a specific cap on network owned-and-operated stations may still be appropriate. The filer also critiqued the Media Bureau's Public Notice for conflating network O&Os with stations merely affiliated with a major network, calling them "two different things" [Comment, Charles D. Young, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10623414021382/1].
In a series of ex parte meetings, Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories (altafiber) and Hawaiian Telcom Services Company introduced a novel framework for conditional deregulation. The companies first presented their "social contract" proposal in a June 5 meeting with senior legal advisors to Chairman Brendan Carr [Notice Of Exparte, Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC, Hawaiian Telcom Services Company, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1062759866669/1]. They later detailed the plan in a June 25 meeting with Media Bureau leadership [Notice Of Exparte, Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC, Hawaiian Telcom Services Company, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1062783945949/1]. The filers challenged broadcasters' claims of "economic Armageddon," presenting financial data showing that large station groups like Nexstar and Sinclair have record distribution revenues and substantial free cash flow largely supplied by consumer retransmission consent fees. They argued that any further consolidation without compensatory measures would create an imbalance in negotiating leverage and harm consumers. As a solution, they proposed that broadcasters seeking ownership waivers could enter into a 7-year social contract with the FCC. In exchange for regulatory relief, broadcasters would commit to a schedule of retransmission consent fee reductions—starting at 25% in the first year—with a requirement that MVPDs pass the savings to subscribers. The contracts would also include localism commitments and honor the terms of existing retrans agreements for any acquired stations. In a follow-up ex parte, the companies provided a historical overview of the cable operator social contracts implemented by the FCC between 1994 and 1997, citing the Commission's use of negotiated agreements with operators like Continental Cablevision and Time Warner Cable as direct precedent for their proposal [Notice Of Exparte, Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC, Hawaiian Telcom Services Company, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10627015848147/1].
Formalizing its position, altafiber submitted a detailed comment expanding on its "social contract" framework [Comment, Cincinnati Bell Extended Territories LLC (d/b/a altafiber), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/108050184624458/1]. The filer argued that absent such a mechanism, loosening the cap would primarily benefit large groups like Nexstar and Sinclair, leading to supra-competitive retransmission consent fees. Using SEC filings and investor presentations, altafiber sought to rebut broadcasters' claims of financial distress, calculating that Nexstar returned an average of 28% of its consumer-paid retransmission consent revenue to shareholders over the past five years. The proposed social contract would require a broadcaster seeking a waiver to commit to a 7-year agreement with defined terms, including a schedule of retrans fee reductions (25% in year one, escalating to 50% by year three), a requirement for MVPDs to pass savings to subscribers via an "MVPD Rate Reduction Agreement," and minimum localism commitments. The proposal also specified that an acquiring broadcaster must honor the existing retrans agreements of acquired stations.
Focusing on the rule’s technical basis, K.M. Richards Programming Services argued in a comment that the UHF discount is an obsolete relic of the analog era. The filer contended that with digital broadcasting, the physics are "flipped by 180 degrees," making UHF the superior band and placing VHF stations at a technical disadvantage. K.M. Richards advocated for replacing the UHF discount with a two-tiered VHF discount, proposing a 50% discount for stations on low-VHF channels (2-6) and a smaller 33% or 40% discount for those on high-VHF channels (7-13). The filing asserted that the FCC’s 2016 decision to eliminate the discount was correct and its subsequent restoration was an error [Comment, K.M. Richards, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1070602966730/1].
Also arguing for the elimination of the UHF discount, individual filer Michael Ravnitzky contended that digital transmission technologies have rendered the analog-era justification for the discount obsolete. He asserted that the 600 MHz incentive auction, which contracted the available broadcast spectrum, made it imperative to eliminate the discount to prevent the masking of true market concentration. Ravnitzky stressed that the 39% cap itself is statutory, set by Congress, and that the FCC’s authority is limited to defining how stations are counted, not to changing the ceiling. He framed the cap as an essential check on broadcasters' negotiating power over retransmission consent fees. He also proposed the FCC open the record specifically on hybrid ATSC 3.0 services to gather empirical data on deployment and adoption, arguing that any regulatory decision premised on such services currently "risks relying on speculation rather than demonstrable outcomes" [Comment, Michael Ravnitzky, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10709374719049/1].
Bringing a content creator's perspective, the Documentary Producers Alliance (DPA) urged the Commission not to eliminate the national cap or expand the UHF discount [Comment, Documentary Producers Alliance, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10711163961833/1]. The DPA argued that further broadcast consolidation would mirror the "highly concentrated media ecosystem" of the streaming market, which it characterized as being dominated by a few gatekeepers with little incentive to serve the public interest. The group stated that as streaming platforms have grown, their willingness to license independent and public interest content has declined, shrinking opportunities for documentary producers and harming the broader creative economy. The DPA contended that the national ownership rule is more important than ever to preserve a diverse network of local and independent stations that distribute their work.
Also representing content creators, the Future Film Coalition (FFC) supported "thoughtful modernization" of the cap but cautioned that further consolidation would harm small, independent film and television businesses [Comment, Future Film Coalition, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10711106920257/1]. The FFC argued the Commission's review was "too narrow" because it failed to address the dominance of unregulated online video providers. Quoting an opinion piece by Commissioner Nathan Simington, the coalition noted that streaming platforms' primary competitive advantage is "dodging regulation," which allows them to become "more monopolistic." Citing 2019 Senate testimony from NCTA's Michael Powell and Free Press' Craig Aaron, the FFC asserted that consolidation drains revenue from local communities and homogenizes content. The group called on the FCC to expand its regulatory framework to include streaming platforms and to hold regional hearings to better understand the rule's impact on independent producers.
Representing the broadcast industry, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) pressed the Commission to modernize its ownership rules in a July 14 ex parte meeting with Commissioner Olivia Trusty [Notice Of Exparte, National Association of Broadcasters, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1071626137338/1]. The NAB argued that both the local and national ownership restrictions were "designed for an era that simply no longer exists" and now disadvantage broadcasters against "unconstrained non-broadcast media giants." It contended that without the ability to operate at "meaningful scale," local stations cannot make the investments needed to provide local journalism and emergency information. The trade group linked ownership reform to the ongoing ATSC 3.0 transition, stating that regulatory clarity on both fronts was vital for broadcasting to remain competitive. NAB also dismissed objections to deregulation from other parties as "disingenuous and blatantly anticompetitive."
Replying directly to the NAB, One Ministries, Inc. (OMI) accused the trade group of a "blatant disregard for minority broadcaster rights and needs" [Reply To Comments, One Ministries, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10718275055421/1]. OMI reiterated its position that the FCC should not eliminate ownership caps or force a transition to ATSC 3.0 before independent stations gain must-carry rights on vMVPDs. It framed a mandated transition without guaranteed carriage as an "unfunded mandate" that could bankrupt independent operators. The filer renewed its call to add Class A TV stations to the table of allotments to qualify them for must-carry rights and open ownership opportunities for new entrants. While supporting ATSC 3.0's OFDM technology, OMI suggested the government could mandate ATSC 3.0 receivers in televisions, akin to airbags in cars, arguing the preservation of local broadcasting is a "matter of national security."
In a comprehensive comment, Newsmax argued that weakening the national cap would undermine competition and viewpoint diversity, particularly for conservative and independent outlets [Comment, Newsmax, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10723133948961/1]. The company contended that further consolidation would allow large station groups to harm independent programmers, alleging that Fox Corporation has already used its market power to hinder Newsmax's distribution and that Nexstar uses its leverage to secure higher license fees for its NewsNation channel. The filer called the debt-fueled consolidation in the terrestrial radio industry a "cautionary tale" of what happens when ownership rules are relaxed, arguing that the large debt loads of major broadcast groups are self-inflicted wounds, not a justification for deregulation. Legally, Newsmax asserted the FCC lacks authority to alter the cap, arguing Congress set it at 39% in statute in 2004 and removed the Commission's ability to change it. Invoking the Supreme Court's Major Questions Doctrine, Newsmax stated that only Congress can make such a "basic and fundamental change." The company concluded that while the FCC cannot change the 39% ceiling, it must eliminate the "now-obsolete UHF discount" to correctly implement Congress's will and reflect technological realities.
In a reply, One Ministries, Inc. (OMI) supported Newsmax’s position that the FCC lacks the authority to raise the cap and that doing so would undermine competition and viewpoint diversity [Reply To Comments, One Ministries, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1072461156259/1]. OMI argued the Commission has “lost its way on its mandate to foster localism,” citing a Media Bureau order that denied a market modification petition for its station, KQSL, which sought to add Santa Rosa, California, for must-carry purposes. The filer stated this decision was made despite KQSL providing extensive local service to the area. OMI reiterated its proposals to aid independent broadcasters, including extending must-carry obligations to vMVPDs, adopting a “carry-one, carry-all” framework, and granting must-carry rights to Class A stations.
Adding a legal and procedural critique, a group of academics including Christopher Terry, Caitlin Carlson, and J. Israel Balderas argued the proceeding itself was improper. They contended that any changes to media ownership limits must be conducted within a formal Quadrennial Review, such as the open 2022 or upcoming 2026 proceeding, and not through a piecemeal record refresh. The academics echoed Newsmax's legal analysis, asserting that the Commission likely lacks authority to alter the congressionally-set 39% cap under the Major Questions Doctrine, particularly following the Supreme Court's decisions in West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. They called on the FCC to redefine its foundational media ownership objectives of competition, localism, and diversity, which they claimed lack a coherent empirical framework. The filers also noted that past Commission efforts to promote minority ownership, such as the Incubator Program, have failed to produce any measurable results [Comment, Christopher Terry, Caitlin Carlson and J. Israel Balderas, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10731298305525/1].
Reinforcing arguments about legal authority and ownership diversity, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC (AAJC) strongly opposed any change to the national cap [Comment, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080459203341/1]. The group argued that the FCC lacks the authority to change the cap, which it said Congress mandated at 39% and removed from the Quadrennial Review process. AAJC contended the cap remains essential for promoting viewpoint diversity, citing the Commission's 2023 ownership data showing Asian Americans own just 0.6% of full-power television stations. The filing also described the UHF discount as an obsolete rule that allows large station groups to circumvent the cap, a rationale that disappeared with the 2009 digital transition. Citing Pew Research and its own focus groups, AAJC asserted that local news remains a uniquely trusted source, particularly for the Asian American community, and that further consolidation would harm the availability of this critical programming.
The Free State Foundation (FSF) argued against a "piecemeal" approach to deregulation, warning that one-sided relief for broadcasters would exacerbate existing market distortions [Comment, Free State Foundation, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10804087357569/1]. The think tank contended that while broadcasters face ownership limits, facilities-based MVPDs are also burdened by legacy regulations that do not apply to Big Tech streaming platforms. Modifying the national cap for broadcasters without providing commensurate relief for MVPDs, FSF argued, would further skew retransmission consent negotiations and harm consumers. From a legal standpoint, FSF asserted that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo casts "serious doubts" on the FCC's authority to alter the cap. It argued the "best reading" of the 2004 statute that set the 39% limit and excluded it from quadrennial review is that Congress intended to retain sole authority to change it. FSF concluded that the optimal path is not isolated agency action but comprehensive reform of the Communications Act by Congress.
In a joint comment, a coalition of civil rights groups including Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, Filipina Women's Network, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, and the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund reiterated their opposition to any change in the cap and called for eliminating the UHF discount [Comment, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, Filipina Women's Network, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10804252329037/1]. The groups argued that mass consolidation "wipes out language options, different cultural perspectives, and editorial variety," leaving many Americans un-represented. Citing FCC data, the coalition noted that White owners control nearly 1,000 full-power stations, while Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders collectively own just eight. They argued that lifting the cap would make a "bad situation worse" by allowing large station groups to acquire the last remaining locally owned stations, which they characterized as trusted news sources. The coalition stated the FCC’s public interest mandate requires it to preserve the cap and close the UHF discount to protect diversity.
Entravision Communications Corporation (Entravision), a major Spanish-language media company, called for the complete deletion of the national cap, arguing the situation for local broadcasters is now a "break glass moment" [Comment, Entravision Communications Corporation, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080414418708/1]. Citing recent Nielsen data showing broadcast viewership falling below 20% for the first time, Entravision contended that the time for "moderate changes" had passed and that broadcasters needed scale to survive the "existential threat" from unregulated Big Tech platforms. The company introduced a new line of argument, asserting that the cap’s deleterious effect is exacerbated by the FCC’s attribution standard, which treats any voting stock interest of 5% or more as cognizable ownership. Entravision argued this "needlessly restrictive" rule stifles capital investment and that the Commission should amend its rules to regulate only actual control, not minority stakes. The company framed deregulation as essential to its ability to continue investing in local news for the communities it serves.
Similarly arguing for repeal, Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) called the rule an "outdated relic" that "hinders competition" from unregulated Big Tech and streaming giants [Comment, Trinity Broadcasting Network, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080483546560/1]. TBN stated that the "future of broadcast television depends on bold reform," rejecting an incremental approach. Citing Nielsen data showing streaming's 44.8% market share versus broadcast's 20.1%, the religious broadcaster argued that eliminating the cap would allow for the economies of scale needed to invest in localism, compete for advertising, and fund the ATSC 3.0 transition. The network also quoted statements from Commissioner Brendan Carr describing a "break glass moment for broadcasters" to support its position.
Univision Communications, Inc. (UCI) also called for relaxing or eliminating the cap, arguing the rule is irrational given the "transformational change" in the video marketplace [Comment, Univision Communications, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080454551418/1]. The Spanish-language broadcaster asserted that with streaming viewership now eclipsing combined cable and over-the-air viewing according to May 2025 Nielsen data, the cap is an "arbitrary and artificial constraint" that prevents competition with unregulated Big Tech. UCI contended that the economies of scale from national reach enable investment in high-quality local news, citing its own Spanish-language programming as evidence. It argued that deregulation is necessary to compete with both domestic and global video providers.
Also arguing for deregulation, Fox Television Stations, LLC (FTS) asserted the national cap should be relaxed or eliminated because the video marketplace has "radically transformed" [Comment, Fox Television Stations, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10805752415732/1]. FTS stated that broadcasters are the only market participants subject to ownership limits while competing with cable, DBS, and unregulated online video distributors like Google's YouTube, now the most-watched video provider on television sets according to Nielsen. The filer contended the cap now impedes localism by constraining station viability, arguing that national scale supports local service. FTS noted its owned stations produce nearly 1,200 hours of local news per week and can leverage national resources during emergencies. The company also urged the Commission to avoid treating network-owned stations differently from non-affiliates, arguing such a move would be legally unsustainable under the APA and the First Amendment and would punish the stations producing the most local news, citing RTDNA survey data.
The Center for American Rights (CAR) supported "reform or easing" of the national ownership cap, framing its position around localism [Comment, Center for American Rights, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10804908625248/1]. The group argued that regulatory flexibility would strengthen the economic position of local stations, which it described as being more trusted and less ideologically biased than national news media. CAR contended that station groups with greater scale are better positioned to push back against national network programming from "New York and Hollywood" and develop their own alternatives, citing The National Desk as an example. The filing, which referenced the FCC's order in the Paramount transaction and statements from Chairman Carr, asserted that stronger local stations can more effectively compete against Big Tech.
Signaling a unified front for MVPDs, the American Television Alliance (ATVA) disclosed a July 31 meeting with the office of Commissioner Trusty to discuss both the national ownership and ATSC 3.0 proceedings [Notice Of Exparte, American Television Alliance, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/108042217609730/1]. Representatives from DIRECTV, ACA Connects, and Optimum attended on behalf of ATVA. The filing stated that the substance of its meeting would be reflected in forthcoming comments responding directly to the NAB's proposal to eliminate the national cap.
The National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) also filed in strong opposition, arguing any proposal to weaken the cap would violate a congressional mandate and harm media diversity [Comment, National Hispanic Media Coalition, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/108042202308912/1]. Echoing arguments from other public interest groups, NHMC asserted the FCC lacks authority to alter the 39% limit, which it said Congress set in statute in 2004 and removed from the Quadrennial Review process. The group highlighted what it called "abysmally low minority ownership," citing the Commission's most recent ownership data showing Latinos hold a majority stake in only 6% of stations despite making up nearly 20% of the U.S. population. NHMC contended that local broadcast news serves as a critical check on online misinformation campaigns targeting Latino communities and that further consolidation, enabled by the "illogical and obsolete" UHF discount, would erode this protection.
Representing the cable industry, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association (NCTA) urged the Commission to retain the 39% cap, arguing the agency lacks legal authority to change it and that doing so would harm consumers [Comment, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080442683691/1]. NCTA asserted that in the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress set the 39% limit by statute and explicitly removed it from the FCC's quadrennial review, thereby eliminating the Commission's authority to modify it. The trade group argued that increased broadcaster reach would boost station groups' bargaining power in retransmission consent negotiations, leading to higher fees passed on to consumers. Citing FCC data, NCTA noted that retrans revenue increased by 31% from 2019 to 2023 and over 135% since 2015, despite a decline in MVPD subscribers. The group also argued that any attempt to relax the cap for only non-network owned stations would be an unconstitutional, content-based speech restriction under the First Amendment.
Making good on its promise of a substantive filing, the American Television Alliance (ATVA) submitted a detailed comment arguing the Commission should retain the 39% cap. ATVA contended that the FCC lacks legal authority, asserting that Congress set the 39% limit in the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act and deliberately insulated it from the agency's quadrennial review process. The group argued that eliminating the cap would directly harm consumers by fueling broadcaster consolidation, which in turn increases leverage in retransmission consent negotiations and leads to higher subscriber bills. ATVA challenged broadcasters’ claims of an “existential crisis,” citing their own financial reports of record profits, and dismissed the argument that consolidation is needed to “save local news.” The filing posited that deregulation would ultimately harm broadcasters by accelerating a “vicious cycle” of price hikes and subscriber defections to streaming. If the Commission were to act, ATVA proposed several remedial conditions, including preventing blackouts during marquee events, banning minimum penetration clauses, and extending joint negotiation prohibitions to a national scope [Comment, The American Television Alliance, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080402625067/1].
A coalition of 16 press freedom groups, civil liberties organizations, and labor unions, including Open Markets Institute, The NewsGuild-CWA, NABET-CWA, and Free Press, filed in opposition to any loosening of the ownership cap. The groups argued that media consolidation since the 1996 Telecommunications Act has not fostered a better environment for local news, but instead has resulted in newsroom layoffs, closures, and the spread of "news deserts," citing data showing a 75% decline in the number of journalists per capita since 2000 and the closure of 2,900 newspapers since 2005. They asserted that the industry's justification for mergers—creating "synergies" and "economies of scale" to compete with Big Tech—is rhetoric that masks job cuts. The coalition also maintained that the FCC lacks the authority to change the national cap, contending that Congress set the limit in statute in 2004 and retained sole authority to alter it [Comment, Free Press, et al., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/108040819506783/1].
Representing broadcast industry workers, the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America (NABET-CWA) filed in opposition to removing the cap, arguing it would harm workers, press freedom, and localism [Comment, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America (NABET-CWA), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080463821695/1]. The union contended that consolidation leads to job losses, lower wages, and reduced benefits, citing its survey of Nexstar employees, where a majority reported earning less than a living wage. NABET-CWA argued that Nexstar's market power already suppresses industry-wide wages, as other companies claim they cannot offer more and remain competitive. The union dismissed the argument that broadcasters must consolidate to compete with "Big Tech" as a "red herring," stating that online platforms are not sources of original local news and pointing to Nexstar's record revenues as proof of the industry's financial health. Legally, NABET-CWA asserted that only Congress can change the 39% cap and that the Commission must repeal the "technologically obsolete" UHF discount to properly implement the statutory limit.
Focusing on the impact to rural providers, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) opposed any relaxation of the national cap, arguing it would exacerbate the bargaining power imbalance in retransmission consent negotiations [Comment, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10804457118472/1]. The association cited its 2024 survey data showing that rural MVPDs faced an average 33% increase in retrans fees over the prior year, with these fees now constituting 37% of their total operating expenditures. NTCA argued these escalating costs, which are passed on to consumers, are forcing rural providers to consider exiting the video market altogether, jeopardizing access to local news and emergency information in communities with poor over-the-air reception. The group also expressed skepticism that broadcasters would reinvest gains from consolidation into localism, asserting there is "no evidence" that past retransmission consent fee increases have funded enhanced local news operations.
The E.W. Scripps Company (Scripps) called for the full repeal of the cap, arguing that due to "seismic shifts" in the media landscape, the rule now harms localism by preventing station owners from competing with unregulated tech giants [Comment, The E.W. Scripps Company, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080447146856/1]. Countering arguments that the FCC lacks authority, Scripps asserted that because Congress directed the agency to establish the cap in its rules rather than setting it in the statute itself, the Commission retains authority to modify it under Section 303 of the Communications Act. The station group contended that the original localism justification for the rule, balancing power between networks and affiliates, is obsolete. It argued the balance has tipped decidedly in the networks' favor due to reverse retrans fees, cord-cutting, and networks negotiating directly with vMVPDs while moving content to their own streaming services. According to Scripps, affiliate owners need greater scale to regain leverage. Scripps also detailed how local stations now compete directly with unregulated platforms like YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video for local advertising and high-value sports programming, which increasingly migrates to national streaming platforms. The company concluded that the cap hobbles the only video competitors with a mandate to serve local communities, thus undermining localism.
Adding its voice to the calls for deregulation, Sinclair, Inc. (Sinclair) urged the Commission to eliminate the national ownership cap entirely, arguing that "changed facts should lead to changed rules." The company contended the cap is affirmatively harmful because it restricts broadcasters from competing with "Big Tech and Big Media" platforms that have no public interest obligations. Sinclair cited June 2025 Nielsen data showing YouTube and Netflix alone capture more viewership than all broadcasting combined, and that the U.S. ad revenues of Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon each individually exceed that of the entire U.S. broadcast industry. The filer argued that eliminating the cap would empower local broadcasters to achieve the scale necessary to support local journalism and challenge these dominant platforms. Echoing Chairman Carr, Sinclair warned of repeating the regulatory delay that harmed the newspaper industry and introduced a proposal that the Commission coordinate with the Department of Justice to ensure antitrust analysis of broadcast mergers is not "stymied by outdated definitions of the relevant market" [Comment, Sinclair, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10804021562167/1].
As the nation’s largest television station owner, Nexstar Media Inc. (Nexstar) called for immediate repeal of the cap, declaring the situation an "existential crisis" for local broadcasters [Comment, Nexstar Media Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10804050726041/1]. Nexstar argued the "explosive growth" of unregulated national competitors like streaming services and social media platforms has crippled broadcasters, citing Nielsen data showing broadcast's viewership share fell below 20% for the first time in June 2025. The company asserted that the cap actively undermines localism by preventing stations from achieving the scale needed to invest in local news, and it pointed to its own post-acquisition increase of 28,000 hours of local news as proof that scale enhances local service. On the legal front, Nexstar maintained the FCC has clear authority to act under the Communications Act and an obligation to do so under the APA. It argued the 2004 law that set the cap did not strip the agency of its authority, invoking statutory canons like "elephants in mouseholes" to contend Congress does not make fundamental regulatory changes in ancillary provisions of an appropriations bill.
The CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom (CRF) argued the FCC's proceeding was legally and analytically flawed, urging the agency to withdraw its proposal. The group asserted the Commission lacks statutory authority to alter the 39% cap, contending Congress set the limit in the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act and explicitly removed it from the agency’s periodic review. CRF also called for the elimination of the "technologically obsolete" UHF discount and criticized the Commission for failing to conduct a proper competition analysis under Section 202(h) or a valid Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. Echoing concerns raised by Newsmax, CRF argued that further consolidation would allow dominant station groups to use their retransmission consent leverage to harm independent conservative voices and rejected the argument that broadcasters need scale to compete with Big Tech, calling it a "red herring" [Comment, CPAC Foundation Center for Regulatory Freedom, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10804739414409/1].
In a joint comment representing over 700 local stations, the ABC, NBC, CBS, and FBC Television Affiliates Associations called for the complete elimination of the national cap, calling it an "illogical and anachronistic" rule that is "unfair, irrational, and contrary to the public interest" [Comment, ABC Television Affiliates Association, NBC Television Affiliates, CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, FBC Television Affiliates Association, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080489410082/1]. The Affiliates Associations argued the rule shackles local broadcasters while unregulated Internet giants and Big Media Conglomerates face no restrictions. They introduced a new line of argument focused on the deteriorating network-affiliate relationship, stating that the Big Four networks now compete directly with their own affiliates through direct-to-consumer streaming platforms, control negotiations with vMVPDs to the affiliates' detriment, and use their leverage to extract ever-higher affiliation fees. Legally, the associations contended the FCC retains full authority to eliminate the cap, arguing that when Congress directed the FCC to modify the cap percentage, it did not amend the Communications Act itself or otherwise remove the agency's long-standing authority to repeal its own rules.
Challenging the premise that greater scale is the solution, non-profit Common Frequency, Inc. (CFI) argued that seeking consolidation to compete with streaming is an "outmoded concept from the last century" [Comment, Common Frequency, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1080545486978/1]. CFI contended that the broadcast "scarcity model" is irrelevant in the digital "attention economy," where streaming sources are "essentially infinite" and owning more stations does not meaningfully increase market share. The group stated that broadcasters' real problem is content, not scale, particularly as networks siphon compelling programming to their own streaming services, and posited that the direct way to compete with streaming is for broadcasters to create their own robust online platforms. Citing the history of radio deregulation as a cautionary tale of consolidation leading to eviscerated localism and eventual bankruptcy, CFI also warned that deregulation could lead to "spectrum-hoarding," where insolvent broadcast groups retain valuable spectrum licenses for investment purposes rather than public service.
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) called for the immediate and complete repeal of the national cap, declaring the situation a "true emergency" for the industry [Comment, National Association of Broadcasters, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10804037486459/1]. The trade group argued that the nearly 85-year-old rule is an asymmetric restraint that prevents broadcasters from competing with unconstrained streaming and tech platforms that dominate the modern marketplace. Citing June 2025 Nielsen data, NAB noted that streaming platforms now garner 46% of total TV usage, while broadcast has fallen to an 18.5% share, with YouTube alone capturing 12.8%. The group also presented BIA data showing that real inflation-adjusted advertising revenues for TV stations fell by nearly 43% from 2000-2024. NAB argued that scale is essential to fund local news, citing RTDNA data showing that as station groups increased in scale from 2011-2023, the total hours of local news increased by nearly 50%. The trade group asserted the FCC has consistently and correctly concluded it has authority to repeal the rule, arguing Congress only directed the Commission to "modify its rules," not to codify the cap in statute. NAB dismissed arguments from pay-TV interests as hypocritical, self-interested attempts to keep their broadcast competitors weak. The filing also maintained that the rule is based on the "fundamentally faulty premise" of 100% "reach" in a DMA, a fiction that bears no resemblance to a station's actual single-digit audience share.
In a sweeping refutation of broadcaster arguments, advocacy group Free Press called the proceeding a "transparently corrupt attempt" to enable media monopolization in exchange for "political fealty" to the Trump administration [Comment, Free Press, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10804337918335/1]. The group contended the FCC lacks legal authority to alter the cap, arguing Congress fixed it at 39% in the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act and removed it from the Commission's quadrennial review. Free Press sought to rebut broadcasters' economic claims, presenting a detailed financial analysis purporting to show that major broadcast firms are in "great financial health," with high profit margins and strong stock performance. The group argued that despite record revenues, newsroom employment has been flat for a decade, and that consolidation has actively harmed localism. Citing studies from the Shorenstein Center and a 2025 study by Danilo Yanich, Free Press asserted that large chains replace original local news with duplicated and out-of-market content to achieve cost-cutting synergies. The group also dismissed the "compete with Big Tech" justification for deregulation, arguing that local broadcasters do not operate in the same relevant product market as online platforms like Google or streamers like Netflix. It concluded that the FCC must retain the congressionally mandated cap and eliminate the "utter anachronism" of the UHF discount.