A powerful coalition of public interest groups, labor unions, and multichannel video providers (MVPDs) is vigorously opposing efforts to eliminate the federal television ownership cap. They argue that lifting the 39 percent national audience reach limit would contravene congressional law and harm consumers.
In filings with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), opponents, including the American Television Alliance and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), contend that increased broadcast consolidation will inflate programming costs, destroy local jobs, and overstep the agency’s legal authority, as mandated by Congress in 2004. This resistance emerges as the FCC revisits national television ownership rules, pressured by major broadcast companies aiming to compete with streaming services and tech giants that face no similar restrictions.
The NCTA asserts in its filing that “the Commission lacks the legal authority to change the cap” under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004. This legislation established the 39 percent limit and explicitly “eliminated the Commission’s authority to modify or repeal the cap” without congressional action. The CPAC Foundation echoes this, stating that “any attempt to modify this threshold by agency rulemaking runs afoul of the separation of powers and would likely fail judicial scrutiny.”
The American Television Alliance supports this legal stance while emphasizing the consumer consequences, stating that any change would violate federal law and lead to higher retransmission consent fees for cable and satellite subscribers. The National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians-CWA (NABET-CWA) provides compelling evidence of how industry consolidation negatively impacts workers, showing how past mergers have lowered wages and job security in newsrooms nationwide. “Removing the national cap would harm workers in the broadcast industry, including NABET-CWA members, by lowering wages and benefits, reducing the number of jobs, and decreasing job security,” the union declared in its extensive submission to the FCC.
Free Press and a coalition of 16 press freedom organizations warn that further consolidation will weaken local journalism and democratic discourse by limiting viewpoint diversity and replacing community-focused reporting with centrally produced content. “The push for national consolidation has nothing to do with enriching viewers’ lives — only shareholders’ wallets,” Free Press wrote, disputing industry claims that grouping television stations with digital platforms for competitive analysis is justified.
Conservative groups share these concerns about ideological diversity in right-leaning media. The CPAC Foundation cautions that dominant broadcasters have used retransmission leverage to “suppress or disadvantage rival networks on MVPD platforms,” citing instances where cable providers were prevented from placing competing conservative networks on favorable channels due to contractual restrictions imposed by large station owners.
Several groups question the broadcast industry's assertion that removing ownership caps will enhance competition with streaming and social media. Common Frequency, a media policy nonprofit, argues that consolidation is an outdated response to modern distribution challenges. “Buying more television stations to compete with streaming is akin to building more CD pressing plants to compete with Napster,” the organization stated, advocating for direct digital investment by broadcasters instead.
The Conservative Political Action Coalition Foundation’s Center for Regulatory Freedom shares these concerns, arguing that “allowing large broadcast groups to accumulate greater national reach” won’t counter Big Tech dominance but will “reduce the diversity of voices and accelerate the homogenization of political discourse.” “Broadcasters are trying to answer the wrong question. Television cannot expect to compete with streaming using deregulatory concepts from the last century,” wrote Common Frequency.
Despite the strong opposition, industry experts anticipate the FCC will side with broadcasters' arguments for eliminating or increasing the ownership cap. The FCC’s ongoing rulemaking proceeding continues to solicit input on video market competition and local news sustainability, but the regulatory momentum seems to favor deregulation. The agency’s current composition and prior commissioner statements suggest sympathy for broadcasters’ competitive arguments against streaming and tech giants. If the FCC proceeds as expected, legal challenges are expected, sparking a major legal battle over the extent of federal broadcast regulation and Congress’s intent in the streaming age.