ctrl+alt+del
DFP submits this comment into FCC's Delete Delete Delete!
(It was an honor to submit the following comment in the Delete Delete Delete docket. You can also find this comment at fcc.gov)
We commend FCC Chairman Brendan Carr for spearheading this necessary and timely proceeding. The Digital First Project is honored to submit the following comment specifically raising concerns about several anachronistic regulations that are holding backing the broadcast industry from competing with big tech:
Media Ownership Rules Are Relics: End Them Now
The current FCC media ownership caps – both the national audience reach limit on television stations and local market ownership restrictions – are products of an era long past. Most of these rules were instituted decades ago, before the internet and have remained “substantially unchanged, despite a revolutionary media landscape.” For example, radio station ownership limits have been “static since 1996, a date that preceded the introduction of streaming services like Pandora and Spotify, along with Sirius/XM, podcasting, Facebook and YouTube.”[1]
In the interim, the media marketplace has been upended by the rise of digital platforms, national cable networks, streaming services, and social media – none of which face the ownership constraints imposed on local broadcasters. Traditional multichannel TV providers (cable, satellite, etc.) now reach fewer than half of U.S. households, down from 74% just five years ago, as viewers migrate to internet-based alternatives. This dramatic audience fragmentation underscores that the old ownership caps, designed for a bygone era of limited outlets, are out of sync with today’s competitive realities.[2]
Audience Fragmentation and Reduced Consolidation Risks
Because consumers now enjoy an abundance of information sources, the risks once associated with media consolidation have greatly diminished. Americans increasingly turn to online and social platforms for news: for instance, YouTube alone now accounts for over one-tenth of all TV viewing in the U.S., and TikTok has become the go-to news source for nearly 4 in 10 young adults. In such an environment, no single broadcast owner – even one owning more stations than currently allowed – can dominate public discourse. Media scholar Benjamin Compaine observes that the media system is “one of the most competitive major industries in U.S. commerce,” with content flowing interchangeably across platforms.[3] It was true twenty years ago, it is true today. He argued that consolidation across outlets has not silenced voices, but rather allowed for better quality content, with the same news stories available from many sources – making the market “less concentrated than previously thought.”
TLDR the proliferation of digital and social media has fundamentally diversified information access. The traditional rationale for strict local ownership caps – preserving viewpoint diversity – is less compelling when social media, streaming, podcasts, and countless online outlets are a click away for consumers. Audience fragmentation ensures that even if broadcasters combine operations, the public will still have many alternative voices and avenues for news, reducing the risk that consolidation could harm the free flow of information in our democracy.
The Need for Scale to Compete with Global Tech Giants
Meanwhile, broadcasters face unprecedented competition from global technology and streaming giants – players that did not exist (or were insignificant) when FCC ownership rules were last updated. Yet only broadcasters are artificially capped in how large they can grow. In stark contrast, Big Tech platforms and nationwide streaming services have no such constraints: they can each reach 100% of U.S. audiences (and indeed global audiences) with ease.
The ability of tech behemoths like Google, Netflix, and Apple to amass unlimited audiences and advertising revenue puts local broadcasters at a severe disadvantage. Broadcasters argue that scaling up through mergers or expanded ownership is essential for them to pool resources, invest in new technology, and negotiate advertising on a more equal footing. In order for traditional media outlets to survive and effectively compete in today’s landscape, they must be allowed to expand their reach nationally and within local markets – just as their unregulated online competitors do.
Investment, Innovation, and Local Journalism at Stake
Beyond issues of competition, existing ownership caps directly impact investment in local journalism and innovation. Decades-old ownership restrictions. When broadcasters are barred from owning additional stations (nationally or in-market), it limits their economies of scale and access to capital. This in turn can mean fewer resources to spend on news gathering, investigative journalism, and new services for communities.
Academic research has found that larger media groups often have greater capacity to produce local news. For example, earlier FCC studies noted that television stations co-owned with newspapers or with another station tend to offer more local news content than those that stand alone – suggesting that consolidation can enhance local journalism through shared newsrooms and pooled reporting costs broadcasters have attested in FCC proceedings that the current local caps block otherwise beneficial combinations. They point to cases where merging struggling stations could save news departments or where owning additional outlets would justify investment in local investigative reporters or new programming, but the deals are forbidden by rule.
Lifting both the national and local ownership caps would allow broadcasters to attract new investment, experiment with innovative business models, and strengthen local journalism through more sustainable operations. It would also enable strategic partnerships and station group expansions that can keep smaller community stations on the air, rather than going dark due to economic pressure.
Ctrl+Alt+Del
In light of the evidence, there is a clear and compelling case for the FCC to eliminate both the national cap and the local media ownership limits. The original goals of these rules – promoting diversity, competition, and localism – can now better be achieved through a modernized regulatory approach. In today’s digitally-driven marketplace, Americans enjoy unprecedented content choices and sources of news, ensuring diversity of viewpoints even without strict ownership prohibitions.
At the same time, permitting broadcasters to grow and consolidate will equip them to remain viable competitors to Big Tech, preserving an important counterweight in the information ecosystem. It will also remove artificial barriers to investment in local media, enabling innovation and bolstering the production of local news that communities depend on. Broadcasters, academics, and policy experts alike recognize that the market reality has changed and that legacy caps are no longer serving the public interest. Indeed, the courts have affirmed the FCC’s authority to update these rules to reflect competitive changes in media.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nathan Leamer
Executive Director
Digital First Project
[1] https://www.nab.org/advocacy/issue.asp?id=2161&issueid=1017
[2] FSF Comment chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://freestatefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/FSF-Comments-%E2%80%93-The-State-of-Competition-in-the-Communications-Marketplace-060624.pdf
[3] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://techliberation.com/wp-content/uploads/2005/05/Final_Compaine_Paper_050205.pdf