[HN Gopher] Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on br...
___________________________________________________________________
Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV
ownership
Author : pseudolus
Score : 143 points
Date : 2026-08-06 18:22 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nbcnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nbcnews.com)
| trollbridge wrote:
| 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.)
| dyauspitr wrote:
| > 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.
| eigencoder wrote:
| Those are all the things that replace broadcast TV
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Well, cell phones and home Internet theoretically also
| replace cable and satellite TV but that's not really what
| you see in real life.
| eigencoder wrote:
| My 70 year old grandpa just cancelled his satellite TV in
| favor of streaming :)
| mulmen wrote:
| They replace it for delivery. That's not what this is
| about. The change discussed here is about content creation.
| That content is already delivered through multiple
| channels.
| trollbridge wrote:
| Because someone with access to those things has no need for
| rabbit ears.
|
| Broadcast TV today is a stream of bytes. The same stream can
| be delivered via cable, satellite, a cell phone, or home
| Internet.
| mulmen wrote:
| This isn't about content delivery, it is about content
| creation. The rule change allows further centralization of
| editorial control of what your local reporters broadcast
| across all mediums.
| wmf wrote:
| I heard in some European countries they packed digital SD
| channels into less spectrum (one 6 MHz channel can carry 4-5 TV
| channels). We should have done that here instead of
| broadcasting HD.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Here in the US I get PBS on Channel 10 - there's 10.1
| (straight PBS), 10.2 (PBS-World) and 10.3 (PBS kids) - do
| each of these take a separate 6MHz bandwidth, or are they
| packed into that single 6MHz bandwidth like in Europe?
| wmf wrote:
| Yeah, that's one channel. IMO it's wasteful to give PBS an
| entire 6 MHz.
| Animats wrote:
| ESPN, however, demands that they get the full 6 MHz.
| MrRadar wrote:
| Why shouldn't they get 6 MHz? My PBS station broadcasts 4
| subchannels: the main PBS channel, PBS Kids, a channel
| with programming about our local region (which airs live
| coverage of our state legislature when it's in session),
| and a loop of weather information with audio from the
| local NOAA Weather Radio broadcast. Those are all useful
| public services. PBS Kids in particular I think has a
| very good reason to exist, considering the absolute
| wasteland that is young children's media on streaming.
| jyoung8607 wrote:
| That's already widely done in the US.
|
| If you plug in an antenna and scan for local channels, what
| used to be one analog TV channel on colloquially-named
| "channel 7" in the defined channel 7 frequency range will now
| be seen as "channel 7-1" which is often (but not always!)
| actually broadcast on the old frequency. During the ATSC
| transition, it was important to retain the branding and
| consumer memory of "channel 7" even when the RF transport
| frequency changed.
|
| The transition opened the ability to have an arbitrary number
| of digital subchannels, 7-2, 7-3, etc etc. The total bitrate
| available on a given ATSC broadcast is fixed, but it can be
| partitioned among multiple MPEG streams. The typical setup is
| one (occasional two) HD channels and several SD channels.
| Obviously there's a balancing act between bitrate and visual
| quality for each subchannel. It's often used as a way to
| broadcast older (read: cheaper) syndicated SD content on
| which they can run more ads while keeping the main HD channel
| quality reasonably acceptable.
| wmf wrote:
| That's not what I'm talking about though. We should have
| repacked ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox onto a single channel.
| jyoung8607 wrote:
| Seventeen years ago, when we transitioned, the state of
| available and deployed equipment, codecs, and home
| receivers would not have permitted it.
|
| I mean sure, you could pack four streams into one 6MHz
| channel. They could even be "HD" insofar as the
| transmitted stream is 720p or 1080i.
|
| The result would have been MPEG-2 program streams of
| about 4.5Mbit each instead of about 18-19Mbit (assuming
| no other subchannels). That would make live sports or
| anything with significant motion look like absolute
| dogshit.
|
| You might say that you don't care about that, and that is
| fine for you. However, in that case, I would respectfully
| submit that opinion to be far from the center of the bell
| curve of television-viewing American public of that era.
|
| We could do a lot better with ATSC 3.0. So, there might
| someday be a second round of broadcast frequency
| reclamation, just as there was with ATSC 1.0.
| wmf wrote:
| If you limit it to 480i I think 4.5 Mbps would be fine.
| If you use a cherrypicker sports could burst to a higher
| bitrate.
| jyoung8607 wrote:
| The original transition (and release of extra
| frequencies) was a delicate and painful process with lots
| of involved parties who had to spend lots of money to
| make it happen. Politically speaking, it could only
| happen if everyone involved saw some actual benefit from
| the change.
|
| If you got into a time machine and tried your plan two
| decades ago, the conversations would have gone something
| like this:
|
| -----
|
| Government: "Hey broadcaster, we need you to throw out
| and upgrade all your broadcast equipment that's working
| just fine today."
|
| Broadcaster: "Why?"
|
| Government: "So we can auction off some of the broadcast
| channel bandwidth."
|
| Broadcaster: "Why else?"
|
| Government: "That's really it."
|
| Broadcaster: "How about instead, I take a little bit of
| that money you're asking me to spend, and give it to your
| political opponent's campaign?"
|
| -----
|
| Government: "Hey citizens, we need you to buy a new TV or
| buy an adapter for your current TV that's currently
| working just fine."
|
| Citizen: "Why?"
|
| Government: "So we can auction off some of the broadcast
| channel bandwidth."
|
| Citizen: "Why else?"
|
| Government: "That's really it."
|
| Citizen: "How about instead, I vote for the opposition
| candidate who says he'll let me keep my TV and my money?"
|
| -----
|
| We're able to juggle broadcast frequencies more easily
| after the transition. Not only did we shrink the
| broadcast frequency range at the time of transition, we
| did it again about ten years ago with far less pain.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_wireless
| _sp...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_wireless
| _sp...
|
| TL;DR: 480i would have been an absolute non-starter.
| Kirby64 wrote:
| 480i? Nobody owns CRTs anymore, so interlaced content is
| inferior in many ways. 720p is already garbage for 2026.
| We shouldn't be reducing resolution, if anything it
| should be going up.
| thomasjb wrote:
| A single 6MHz channel at the top end of UHF band would be
| enough to implement a universal cellular telephony
| service - simple calls and texts - at very low cost if
| phones had modems for it. I think that would be the
| better use of spectrum.
| toast0 wrote:
| RF Channels 38-83 have all been taken from (US) TV since
| the 80s. Mostly used for mobile phones.
|
| rf 70+ is 800 Mhz
|
| rf 52+ is 700 Mhz
|
| rf 38+ is 600 Mhz
|
| Lots of phones support these frequencies.
|
| Kind of annoying for tv, because cell towers on
| frequencies that used to be tv frequencies can overload
| amplifiers, so peeps need to go put filters up before the
| preamp.
| TheAdamist wrote:
| Atsc 3.0 does this in a lot of areas, it is in my area,
| all the channels are multiplexed from one broadcast,
| although it's hard to tell on the tv since you get the
| virtual channel numbers that are different and the same
| as the atsc 1.0 channels
| cogman10 wrote:
| The very VERY unfortunate thing about ATSC 3.0 is it has
| an internet optional requirement which broadcasters have
| decided to use as a gate for watching ATSC content.
| They've turned it into a premium service rather than just
| simply using the open codecs.
| toast0 wrote:
| If you're gonna smash everything onto a single channel,
| you may as well turn the whole thing off.
|
| Gonna look like absolute trash. Might be almost
| acceptable with atsc 3, except for the diaster of DRM and
| new proprietary audio codecs that brings.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _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.
| francisofascii wrote:
| 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.
| sophacles wrote:
| You can watch all of these things on the internet (legally).
| kelnos wrote:
| For free? (Legally.)
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I get all of those via streaming, local affiliates even, on
| Fubo. Hulu was similar IIRC. Have not had cable TV in years,
| even longer since I used an antenna.
| otterley wrote:
| You're paying for Fubo, though, are you not? It's not a
| free service like OTA TV is.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Correct.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| > 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.
| ericmay wrote:
| We have everything and still use antennas for local
| broadcast: NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, Fox. Sports, especially
| football, are very easy to access over the air.
| mikeaskew4 wrote:
| It's nuts to pay for commercials. More people have antennas
| (or griddles or whatever they are now) than get credit.
| walrus01 wrote:
| > 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.
| Animats wrote:
| Amusingly, there are streaming sites you can't watch without
| permission from your "television provider".
| erickhill wrote:
| Except for live sports, for which it is still vastly superior -
| no subscription required.
| Marsymars wrote:
| Funny how this has diverged in Canada/USA which otherwise
| have broadly similar broadcast markets in many respects. The
| broadcast stations have been gutted of sports content in
| favour of a couple of specialty channels which are a combined
| $70/month for streaming/app subscriptions.
| mulmen wrote:
| 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.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > 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.
| toast0 wrote:
| > 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.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Wow, the people buying them up must be really stupid then. You
| should tell them.
| golem14 wrote:
| That's just step 1. In step 2, the argument goes: "See this is
| already allowed for broadcast tv. Streaming is no different, so
| we demand the same change there"... and so on.
| freediddy wrote:
| I haven't watched broadcast TV in over a decade, except for live
| sports. I also haven't listened to broadcast radio in even
| longer. My teenage children don't know how to use the TV or
| radio. It's like someone telling me a company has a monopoly on
| the telephone lines; nostalgic for me but utterly useless in
| 2026.
| s0ss wrote:
| most people aren't hn readers. broadcast tv is far from useless
| in 2026, that's how many normies watch tv.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| this is all about allowing sinclair and their right wing ilk
| to own local news.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _this is all about allowing sinclair and their right wing
| ilk to own local news._
|
| From 2017, "Sinclair Broadcast Group: Last Week Tonight
| with John Oliver (HBO)":
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
|
| "John Oliver: Sinclair Broadcasting brings 'troubling'
| rightwing bias to local news":
|
| * https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-
| radio/2017/jul/03/john-ol...
|
| "John Oliver: How Sinclair Broadcast Group 'Brainwashes'
| Local News":
|
| * https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-
| news/john-ol...
| freediddy wrote:
| TV viewership for 18-49 has dropped almost 80% since 2000,
| with the bulk of that drop between 2015 and today. So most
| "normies" are not watching tv. Older people might, but they
| represent a fraction of the spending audience.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| They just need to vote one _last_ time. You, to save
| America from democracy.
| mulmen wrote:
| And you believe everyone is just like you? What are the
| consequences of consolidating ownership of broadcast stations?
| Remember the Kimmel incident? How does that go with even more
| consolidation?
| freediddy wrote:
| Yes most are just like me, because TV viewership has dropped
| almost 80% since 2000 for 18-49.
| mulmen wrote:
| How are you still not getting this? The change is not about
| owning radio towers. It allows ownership of the
| _programming_ , including local news production. This is a
| move for centralization of editorial control.
|
| _You_ might not care but Sinclair very much does.
| wombat-man wrote:
| I love being able to watch sports for free with my antenna. I
| hope that doesn't end for a long time.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| of course they do. Prepare for sinclair to own everything.
| rdudek wrote:
| Nexsar is taking over Tegna. Currently tied up in courts, but
| it's pretty much sinclair-like propaganda machine.
| magicalist wrote:
| Note that Tom Delay of all people (remember that guy? I'm old and
| I'd say barely) wrote an opposing op ed saying that even though
| he supports the change that this is contrary to the governing
| statute that he helped write, which explicitly bars the FCC from
| changing this limit
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/can-trump-fcc-re...
| kurthr wrote:
| Crime is legal (if you're in the right group).
| hungryhobbit wrote:
| There are plenty of things the Trump admin has done where
| that applies. This is (likely) not one of them.
|
| This idiocy hasn't had its day in court yet, but (especially
| given how the courts have turned against the administration
| in most cases recently) it seems _highly_ likely this will be
| found to be illegal.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| The courts haven't turned against the administration, they
| just don't care to rubber-stamp things that don't advance
| their personal policy goals and only erode trust in the
| courts. This advances their policy goals and that's scary.
| close04 wrote:
| Is anyone else wondering if this is just a "cover crime" for
| the ragebait while the real crime was s happening behind the
| scenes, not getting any attention because this news is
| capturing all of it? They're doing something so ridiculously
| obvious that it's illegal so they can't possibly think this
| is where they gain something. The gain must be somewhere
| else.
| conartist6 wrote:
| yes
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I wish more people would play the game Monopoly and realize how
| much it can suck to live in a world full of monopolies.
| ilovetux wrote:
| 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.
| YeahThisIsMe wrote:
| Well, you see, under the current administration, everything is
| allowed.
| curt15 wrote:
| > 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.
| ilovetux wrote:
| Thanks. That actually makes it make more sense, chevron
| doctrine applied to courts and what they can/can't do.
|
| Edit: made applies past tense
| disposition2 wrote:
| 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...
| warkdarrior wrote:
| And what is this Congress going to do about it? Nothing.
| jibal wrote:
| Congress already did something -- it wrote the law. It's
| the courts that rule against lawbreakers. However, it's the
| executive branch that takes action against lawbreakers, and
| that branch is currently utterly corrupt.
| throwaway27448 wrote:
| First, all three branches are obviously quite corrupt.
| Second, congress can obviously still avt to speak on
| behalf of us and they refuse to do so.
| jibal wrote:
| I explained the roles of the branches. This throwaway
| comment doesn't refute what I wrote. And the way Congress
| "speaks" on our behalf (that is, they are supposed to
| represent us) is through legislation.
|
| No way am I giving the GOP-controlled Congress a pass on
| its numerous failures to oppose corrupt appointments or
| to impeach corrupt officials--including of course Carr--
| but that's not germane here ... an understanding of how
| the government works is, and clearly many people lack
| that.
|
| Also, while the GOP is corrupt through and through,
| including the GOP-dominated SCOTUS, saying that the
| "branches" are is inaccurate -- the lower courts are
| still a bulwark against corruption. This simplistic
| throwaway handwaving in no way invalidates my entirely
| accurate comment about the roles of the branches. I won't
| waste more time commenting on this.
| rainsford wrote:
| That article seems pretty ironic considering the Baltimore
| Sun is controlled by the head of Sinclair, a group pursuing
| (partisan) media consolidation.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ...are you criticizing them for having editorial
| independence?
| Supermancho wrote:
| How does this story demonstrate independence? It's
| covering an announcement.
| gopher_space wrote:
| And being good-looking? Are you criticizing them for
| being fit and handsome?
| Finnucane wrote:
| The law isn't ambiguous.
| ilovetux wrote:
| True, I tried to convey that.
| jackb4040 wrote:
| 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.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Don't worry, the deeply principled conservative justices will
| never allow some random bureaucrats to legislate.
| thenthenthen wrote:
| 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.
| CMay wrote:
| 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?
| thenthenthen wrote:
| Not sure what the reasoning is. I guess cost (disguised as
| 'innovation) ? For me it is extremely weird that you now need
| to pay to receive national news, warnings etc that i payed
| for already through taxes.
| gcanyon wrote:
| What could possibly go wrong?
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| 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.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| 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.
| programmertote wrote:
| 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.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Rand Paul has solved that problem for us today; if Fauci can
| be prosecuted despite his pardon, so can the Trumpists.
| (Probably a win-win for him, I suppose, and I was never a fan
| of the pardon power in the first place.)
| londons_explore wrote:
| > 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?
| warkdarrior wrote:
| This is about over-the-air/broadcast stations (e.g.,
| ABC/NBC/CBS affiliates), not cable stations like CNN.
| Finnucane wrote:
| 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.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| 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.
| limagnolia wrote:
| 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.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| 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
| pyaamb wrote:
| A necessary tool to manufacture consent in the feudalist society
| we're speed running towards
| slater wrote:
| Obligatory, if you haven't seen it yet:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-08-07 04:01 UTC)