EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently released a notice of proposed rulemaking that would eliminate a variety of media ownership restrictions of a firm owning multiple broadcast stations in a single market.
• The FCC’s broadcast ownership restrictions were designed to promote competition, localism, and a diversity of viewpoints in broadcast markets when consumers have few alternatives, but as other communications technologies develop, the reliance on broadcasting has dwindled.
• Overly restrictive media ownership requirements can inhibit broadcasters from offering the services that their communities need, and eliminating outdated rules may allow broadcasters to better compete with digital alternatives.

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has long set standards designed to prevent consolidation within the radio and broadcasting industry. These standards aim to promote competition, localism and diversity of viewpoints by ensuring that the power to inform the masses is not held by limited actors. Congress directed the FCC to reevaluate these standards every four years to determine if they continue to meet their intended aim. In September, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) continuing the latest quadrennial review.

Specifically, the FCC is looking at local-ownership rules designed to limit the number of stations a single firm can own in a given market. In addition, the FCC is considering the elimination of a dual-network rule that prevents mergers between the big-four television networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC). While these rules may have made sense when consumers had few options other than over-the-air broadcast, the market dynamics have drastically shifted, especially in recent years. Consumers have long been able to watch or listen to media via cable and direct-broadcast satellite systems, but now digital, internet-based media dominates viewing and listening numbers. As such, there is no longer a need for such restrictions to achieve the goals of competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity because consumers can simply choose alternative media delivery options.

More important, there are costs to keeping these rules in place, and if the FCC’s goal is to promote a robust and diverse broadcast market, eliminating these rules can help. Broadcast viewership and listener numbers are falling dramatically for years, and with decreased viewership comes decreased advertising revenue. Many broadcast firms are struggling to stay afloat, and could go out of business, leaving their viewers and listeners with fewer options. By eliminating the restrictions, the FCC could create efficiencies for firms, lowering costs and better allowing broadcasters to compete with digital alternatives.

Quadrennial Review Overview

The current NPRM looks at three local-broadcast rules: radio, television, and dual networks. They are summarized below.

Local Radio Ownership

The Local Radio Ownership Rule limits the total number of radio stations that may be commonly owned in a local market. The cap varies based on the total number of radio stations in a market, but generally limits ownership to around 25–35 percent market share. The market analysis is solely limited to radio stations, however, and the FCC is asking whether the definition of an “audio marketplace” should be expanded to include streaming, satellite radio, and podcasts, and if advertisers view these as substitutes for broadcast radio.

Local Television Ownership

The local television ownership rule limits the total number of broadcast stations a firm can own to two within a single Nielsen Designated Market Area (DMA). One of the two stations, however, must be outside of the top-four rated stations. As with the local radio ownership inquiry, the FCC asks whether the define the “video marketplace” should only include broadcast televisions stations. Instead, the FCC is asking whether it should including streaming platforms, and whether consolidation could improve broadcasters’ efficiency.

Dual Network Rule

Finally, the Dual Network Rule effectively bans ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC from merging with one another. The FCC is seeking comment on whether the rule is necessary to protect competition and localism.

These rules have largely remained the same since their individual introductions between the 1940s and 1970s. The biggest change came in 2017, when the FCC eliminated its newspaper-broadcast and radio-television cross-ownership rules, citing the rise of diverse modern media sources for news and entertainment.

An additional rule constrains national television ownership. A company can own as many TV stations as it wants nationwide, only if those stations reach no more than 39 percent of U.S. TV households. Stations on UHF channels (14 and above) count for only half their market reach, a policy called the “UHF Discount.” This rule, however, is not included in the FCC’s quadrennial review.

Changes in Media Marketplace

While Congress directed the FCC to promote broadcast competition, localism, and a diversity of viewpoints, the restrictions on media ownership are outdated and may not only fail to promote these goals, but actively prevent them. Nielsen data show that broadcast accounted for just over 16 percent of total television viewing time in August 2025, while streaming services jumped to more than 46 percent. Despite the drop in audience for broadcasting, these firms are still subject to regulations not imposed on streaming services or cable media. As a result, not only does the market disfavor broadcasting, but FCC regulations are making it more difficult to compete. By eliminating these restrictions, the FCC can promote all three objectives by allowing broadcasters to create efficiencies and lower costs.

For example, local broadcasters have begun to shed their staffs. In fact, stations across the country have seen a 75-percent decline in the number of journalists employed since 2002, limiting access to local content for their viewers. This in turn leaves more than 1,000 counties without a single full-time local journalist. By combining assets with other broadcasters, larger firms can lower costs and afford to bring back more local news, if there is enough demand from the local market to justify it.

Further, if multiple stations all attempt to reach the most profitable demographic, the actual amount of diversity in content could drop. For example, if every broadcaster tries to acquire rights to live local sports, the sports fans in that market would be thrilled, but fans of reality TV may have less options. If a single firm has multiple stations, it can better spread content around to maximize the amount of preferred content available to each consumer.

Finally, Big tech has drawn ire from both political parties. Allowing broadcasters to acquire additional stations would allow broadcasters to better compete with big tech by saving costs, improving quality and developing new services for consumers. This, in turn, would provide more appealing alternatives to platforms such as Google’s Youtube, Amazon’s Prime, or even Meta’s Instagram.

Without deregulation and an emphasis on competition by expanding the definitions of competitive markets for both radio and television, legacy media may find it impossible to compete with agile new-age media, and cease to exist. If that happens, consumers will be left with fewer over-the-air options.

CONCLUSION

Broadcasting rules were introduced throughout the 20th century when the ability to reach consumers was limited and regulators felt the need to protect a diversity of viewpoints. But as the new age of digital media has taken off, and news is received from agile new sources, these rules have handicapped legacy media’s attempts to retain relevance in dwindling markets. The FCC holds the power to broaden the competitive markets it views broadcasting in, fostering competition and in turn, protecting the American consumer.