Lobbying groups representing cable companies, including Comcast, Charter, and Cox, are preparing to sue the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to stop the elimination of the national television station ownership rule. The rule barred any broadcasting company from reaching more than 39% of U.S. television households.
The groups filed a request with the commission to keep the cap in place temporarily until the legal dispute over the agency’s authority to eliminate it is resolved. They are expected to go to a federal appeals court after the elimination decision is published in the Federal Register, and then seek a preliminary injunction keeping the rule in effect while the case is heard.
The Core of the Legal Dispute
The FCC voted on August 6 to eliminate the rule, but published the final decision on October 1 after an unusual delay. The petitioners argue that Congress explicitly set the 39% cap in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, in response to an earlier attempt by the commission to raise the limit to 45%. In their view, eliminating the cap requires new legislative action and cannot be done through a standalone regulatory decision.
The commission, however, says that the law directed it to modify its rules and did not establish the cap as a fixed limit in the statutory text itself. It maintains that it has the authority, and indeed the obligation, to reassess or eliminate the rule if it no longer serves the public interest. The commission also interprets restrictions concerning periodic reviews of media ownership rules as not preventing it from taking action outside those reviews.
Why Does This Dispute Matter?
Cable groups argue that the expansion of broadcast station groups will give them greater leverage to demand higher fees from television providers for retransmitting channels, which could be reflected in consumers’ monthly bills. They point to an ongoing dispute over the proposed Nexstar Media Group and Tegna deal, which would have reached 80% of U.S. television households, or 54.5% when applying what is known as the UHF discount.
A federal judge ordered the two companies to halt the integration of their assets and operations while the antitrust lawsuit brought by DirecTV continues. Cable groups say the ruling found that the deal could lead to higher retransmission fees, arguing that this case is an indicator of broader effects that could result from eliminating the cap.
A Broader Dispute Over Media Concentration
The threat of litigation is not limited to the cable sector; after the August vote, the Free Press group said it would join allies in challenging the decision. The group fears that eliminating the limit will allow a small number of owners to control more stations, while reducing journalism jobs and weakening the quality of local content—concerns attributed to its position and not a settled outcome in the case.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr proposes replacing the general cap with a review of each deal individually, under which the commission would approve mergers it considers to be in the public interest and reject others. But this model leaves the agency broad discretion, while questions about its legal authority and the effects of concentration on prices and media diversity remain before the courts.