When Federal Communications Commission rolled out its latest Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on broadcast ownership, the reaction was anything but muted. Tom Wheeler, a visiting fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution and former FCC chairman (2013‑2017), blasted the move as a "political ploy" during a recent episode of the Brookings podcast The Current hosted by Fred Dews. The stakes? The very rules that have, for almost a hundred years, tried to keep the airwaves diverse and locally rooted.
Historical backdrop: From the Communications Act to today
The Communications Act of 1934 birthed the FCC with a clear mandate: promote a diversity of voices and ownership in broadcasting. For decades, the agency imposed national caps on how many TV stations a single company could own and imposed strict local‑market limits. Those rules made sense when spectrum was scarce and three major networks dominated national programming.
Fast‑forward to the streaming era, and the landscape looks nothing like the 1930s. Platforms like Netflix, YouTube and TikTok stream content without the same ownership caps, while traditional broadcasters wrestle with shrinking ad dollars. The contrast has turned the FCC’s historic guardrails into, in Wheeler’s words, "a departure from history".
What the new rulemaking entails
The agency’s quadrennial review, mandated by Congress since 1996, kicked off this spring with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM asks for public comment on three big questions: Should the national television ownership cap stay? Do local‑market restrictions still serve the public interest? And how should the Dual Network Rule evolve for a world where streaming services serve as de‑facto national networks?
Commissioner Brendan Carr told the hearing that "arcane, artificial limits" are hampering local stations that actually serve their communities. He suggested that loosening the caps could help broadcasters compete with tech giants for advertising dollars that have migrated online.
Critics, however, warn that loosening ownership rules could accelerate media consolidation, giving a handful of companies even more leverage over what citizens hear and see. The debate is alive at every corner of the room, from the packed public‑comment portal to the brief protests that erupted during the FCC meeting, where a handful of attendees shouted, "Fire Carr the censorship czar!" before being escorted out.
Stakeholder reactions: From former chairmen to legal scholars
Wheeler’s blunt assessment—"the federal government is saying to those who are entrusted with using the people's airways, I'll help with your economics if you'll help with my politics"—captures a deep‑seated fear that the agency is pivoting from public‑interest stewardship to partisan patronage. He singled out the so‑called "Trump FCC" for steering policy toward owners the administration favored, rather than towards a pluralistic media ecosystem.
Legal experts at the American Bar Association’s Communications Law Section argue that any amendment must still meet the "public interest" standard embedded in the Communications Act. They caution that a wholesale removal of the national cap could trigger antitrust scrutiny.
Local news groups, meanwhile, are watching anxiously. A study by the Pew Research Center found that 62 % of Americans still rely on local TV for emergency alerts. If ownership becomes even more concentrated, the risk of homogenized coverage in crises rises sharply.
Potential reforms on the table
- Eliminate the national television ownership cap – allowing a single entity to own more than the current 39‑station limit.
- Relax local‑market restrictions based on market‑specific competition metrics, rather than a blanket rule.
- Modernize the Dual Network Rule to treat streaming platforms as equivalent to traditional broadcasters for certain public‑interest obligations.
- Introduce a "localism" credit, rewarding companies that invest in community newsrooms with relaxed ownership limits.
Each proposal carries trade‑offs. Removing caps could unleash investment in new technologies for terrestrial broadcasters, but it could also squeeze out independent stations that rely on niche audiences.
Broader implications for the media ecosystem
What’s at stake isn’t just who owns a TV tower in Washington, D.C.. The decision will shape the balance of power between legacy broadcasters and the digital platforms that dominate the ad market. If the FCC leans toward deregulation, we may see a wave of mergers reminiscent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act era, potentially reducing the number of distinct local voices by a third over the next decade.
Conversely, maintaining or even tightening the caps could force broadcasters to double‑down on hyper‑local content—something that streaming services can’t easily replicate. That could revitalize community journalism, especially in underserved markets where newspapers have shuttered.
What comes next?
The FCC has a 90‑day comment window that closes on December 15, 2025. After that, a working group will draft a final rule, which must be approved by the full commission before it can be codified. Expect another round of hearings in early 2026, with the final rule likely not taking effect until 2027.
Meanwhile, advocacy groups like Free Press are mobilizing a grassroots campaign to flood the FCC’s docket with comments defending strong ownership limits. Their slogan? "More voices, not fewer."
Frequently Asked Questions
How might the ownership review affect local TV stations?
If the FCC relaxes national and local caps, larger broadcast groups could acquire more stations, potentially squeezing out independent outlets. However, the commission is also debating a "localism" credit that would reward owners who invest in community newsrooms, which could help retain locally‑focused programming.
What is the Dual Network Rule and why is it relevant now?
The Dual Network Rule, created in the 1970s, limits a single company from owning two of the three major broadcast networks. In today’s streaming‑centric world, legal scholars argue the rule should be updated so that major streaming services are treated like traditional networks for public‑interest obligations.
Why does Tom Wheeler believe the FCC is becoming politicized?
Wheeler points to statements from the current leadership suggesting that ownership caps be eased in ways that benefit companies aligned with the administration’s political goals, echoing tactics he observed during the 2017‑2020 "Trump FCC" era.
What timeline should the public expect for any rule changes?
Comments close on December 15, 2025. The FCC will then draft a final rule, likely releasing it in mid‑2026, with implementation slated for 2027 after a final vote and congressional review.
How could the outcome impact advertising revenue distribution?
If ownership caps are lifted, larger broadcasters could command a bigger share of the TV ad market, potentially reducing the slice that independent and local stations capture. Conversely, a tighter regime could preserve a more fragmented ad ecosystem, keeping money circulating among smaller players.
