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.
disposition2 17 minutes ago [-]
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.
Well, you see, under the current administration, everything is allowed.
curt15 28 minutes ago [-]
> 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.
magicalist 51 minutes ago [-]
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
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.)
BeetleB 9 minutes ago [-]
> 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.
UncleOxidant 1 hours ago [-]
> 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 1 hours ago [-]
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.
walrus01 57 minutes ago [-]
> 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 50 minutes ago [-]
Amusingly, there are streaming sites you can't watch without permission from your "television provider".
francisofascii 1 hours ago [-]
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.
wmf 1 hours ago [-]
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.
jyoung8607 53 minutes ago [-]
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 50 minutes ago [-]
That's not what I'm talking about though. We should have repacked ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox onto a single channel.
jyoung8607 27 minutes ago [-]
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 6 minutes ago [-]
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.
UncleOxidant 1 hours ago [-]
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 53 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, that's one channel. IMO it's wasteful to give PBS an entire 6 MHz.
MrRadar 40 minutes ago [-]
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.
Animats 52 minutes ago [-]
ESPN, however, demands that they get the full 6 MHz.
49 minutes ago [-]
CamperBob2 1 hours ago [-]
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.
erickhill 44 minutes ago [-]
Except for live sports, for which it is still vastly superior - no subscription required.
dyauspitr 1 hours ago [-]
> 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 1 hours ago [-]
Those are all the things that replace broadcast TV
mulmen 38 minutes ago [-]
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.
dyauspitr 38 minutes ago [-]
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 35 minutes ago [-]
My 70 year old grandpa just cancelled his satellite TV in favor of streaming :)
trollbridge 1 hours ago [-]
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 37 minutes ago [-]
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.
mulmen 42 minutes ago [-]
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.
thenthenthen 33 minutes ago [-]
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.
gcanyon 21 minutes ago [-]
What could possibly go wrong?
freediddy 1 hours ago [-]
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.
1 hours ago [-]
s0ss 54 minutes ago [-]
most people aren't hn readers. broadcast tv is far from useless in 2026, that's how many normies watch tv.
sleepybrett 39 minutes ago [-]
this is all about allowing sinclair and their right wing ilk to own local news.
throw0101d 12 minutes ago [-]
> 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)":
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?
0xbadcafebee 11 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
sleepybrett 1 hours ago [-]
of course they do. Prepare for sinclair to own everything.
rdudek 20 minutes ago [-]
Nexsar is taking over Tegna. Currently tied up in courts, but it's pretty much sinclair-like propaganda machine.
lenerdenator 2 hours ago [-]
Yet another thing to be undone when Trump leaves office.
BigTTYGothGF 58 minutes ago [-]
I'd like to think a democratic president would have the appetite to do that.
altcognito 1 hours ago [-]
In an ideal world we would roll back to the 1996 telecommunications laws. (or something approximating a sensible approach to less narrow share of the broadcast spectrum)
I think anybody with a gripe about "mainstream media" should really examine who owns most of the media (billionaires) and see the value in enforcing that more indepedent voices are heard, not less as the past three decades has been a relentless march towards.
The whole idea with the advent of the internet was that there would be so many more ways to be heard. That's been kinda true, but the public airwaves are dominated by corporate voices.
mmmpetrichor 2 hours ago [-]
From what I've read, its blatantly illegal. So probably will be undone by the courts in a few months. I wonder if anyone has a list of illegal things this white house has mandated that were overturned and rebuked by the courts soon after.
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.
> The 39% cap was established by Congress in 2004.
1. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communicatio...
Agencies can say whatever they want but courts are not required to defer to them when this inevitably goes to a lawsuit.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/can-trump-fcc-re...
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why are you bundling all those things together? The only thing we care about here is cable or satellite TV for your argument.
Broadcast TV today is a stream of bytes. The same stream can be delivered via cable, satellite, a cell phone, or home Internet.
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...
I think anybody with a gripe about "mainstream media" should really examine who owns most of the media (billionaires) and see the value in enforcing that more indepedent voices are heard, not less as the past three decades has been a relentless march towards.
The whole idea with the advent of the internet was that there would be so many more ways to be heard. That's been kinda true, but the public airwaves are dominated by corporate voices.