The battle over whether to eliminate national broadcast TV ownership caps has taken on the feel of a regulatory prizefight — one that pits industry giants and their chief Washington trade group against an unlikely alliance of progressive activists, labor unions, and even right-wing self-professed “free speech” champions. The stakes? Nothing less than the future structure of the U.S. television business. The Broadcasters’ Case: Scale Or Fade Away The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has gone all-in on the argument that the FCC’s 39% national reach cap is a relic of another era. In recent filings, the NAB painted the picture of an industry under existential threat. Per Nielsen, over-the-air broadcast accounted for less than 19% of overall U.S. TV usage in July, while streaming commanded nearly half, with YouTube alone pulling in a 13.4% share. Meanwhile, inflation-adjusted ad revenues for broadcasters have fallen more than 40% since 2000. For the NAB and major groups like Sinclair and Nexstar, the message is blunt: Without the ability to bulk up, broadcasters won’t have the scale to invest in local journalism, fund the expensive NextGen TV rollout, or fend off the dual assault from Big Tech and cable operators. To them, the cap is less a safeguard than a straitjacket. The Opposition: Strange Bedfellows Yet opposition is fierce — and oddly bipartisan. Free Press, Common Cause, the Communications Workers of America Union (CWA), and other reliably progressive public-interest groups argue that broadcasters remain plenty profitable, and that consolidation historically leads to fewer local voices, layoffs, and a narrowing of perspectives. Then there’s Chris Ruddy, the CEO of far-right-leaning Newsmax, who has emerged as a vocal, unexpected opponent. In a detailed filing, Ruddy warned that eliminating the cap would recreate the radio industry’s post-Telecom Act consolidation mess — an era of over-leveraged debt and homogenized programming. Ruddy, like Free Press, insists that bigger groups would simply wield retransmission consent leverage to extract higher carriage fees, costs that would be passed along to consumers. The beet-red Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Foundation’s Center for Regulatory Freedom goes even further – saying such concentration would “reduce the diversity of voices and accelerate the homogenization of political discourse.” More interestingly, however, these ideologically opposed voices are also united in a separate, more acute argument: that the FCC itself does not have the legal authority to make such changes - only Congress does. In other words, the TV station ownership cap is enshrined in legislative statute; only Congress can alter it - not the FCC. Any attempt to repeal it by commission vote would almost certainly be challenged in court, they warn. When the divergent likes of Free Press and CPAC are aligned on something, you know the issue has scrambled the traditional Washington playbook. |
