brendan carr

After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC’s The View

brendan carr, Equal Time Rule, jimmy kimmel, Policy, The View / Kelly Newman / September 21, 2025

Carr: “Turn your license in to the FCC, we’ll find something else to do with it.”

President-elect Donald Trump speaks to Brendan Carr, his intended pick for Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, as he attends a SpaceX Starship rocket launch on November 19, 2024 in Brownsville, Texas. Credit: Getty Images | Brandon Bell

After pressuring ABC to suspend Jimmy Kimmel, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr is setting his regulatory sights on ABC’s The View and NBC late-night hosts Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon.

Carr appeared yesterday on the radio show hosted by Scott Jennings, who describes himself as “the last man standing athwart the liberal mob.” Jennings asked Carr whether The View and other ABC programs violate FCC rules, and made a reference to President Trump calling on NBC to cancel Fallon and Meyers.

“A lot of people think there are other shows on ABC that maybe run afoul of this more often than Jimmy Kimmel,” Jennings said. “I’m thinking specifically of The View, and President Trump himself has mentioned Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers at NBC. Do you have comments on those shows, and are they doing what Kimmel did Monday night, and is it even worse on those programs in your opinion?”

In response, Carr discussed the FCC’s Equal Opportunities Rule, also known as the Equal Time Rule, and said the FCC could determine that those shows don’t qualify for an exemption to the rule.

“When you look at these other TV shows, what’s interesting is the FCC does have a rule called the Equal Opportunity Rule, which means, for instance, if you’re in the run-up to an election and you have one partisan elected official on, you have to give equal time, equal opportunity, to the opposing partisan politician,” Carr said.

At another point in the interview, Carr said broadcasters that object to FCC enforcement “can turn your license in to the FCC, we’ll find something else to do with it.”

Bona fide news exemption

Carr said the FCC hasn’t previously enforced the rule on those shows because of an exemption for “bona fide news” programs. He said the FCC could determine the shows mentioned by Jennings aren’t exempt:

There’s an exception to that rule called the bona fide news exception, which means if you are a bona fide news program, you don’t have to abide by the Equal Opportunity Rule. Over the years, the FCC has developed a body of case law on that that has suggested that most of these late night shows, other than SNL, are bona fide news programs. I would assume you could make the argument that The View is a bona fide news show but I’m not so sure about that, and I think it’s worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether The View and some of these other programs you have still qualify as bona fide news programs and [are] therefore exempt from the Equal Opportunity regime that Congress has put in place.

The Equal Opportunity Rule applies to radio and TV broadcast stations with FCC licenses to use the airwaves. An FCC fact sheet explains that stations giving time to one candidate must provide “comparable time and placement to opposing candidates” upon request. The onus is on candidates to request air time—”the station is not required to seek out opposing legally qualified candidates and offer them Equal Opportunities,” the fact sheet says.

The exemption mentioned by Carr means that “appearances by legally qualified candidates on bona fide newscasts, interview programs, certain types of news documentaries, and during on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events are exempt from Equal Opportunities,” the fact sheet says.

In 1994, the FCC said that “Congress removed the inhibiting effect of the equal opportunities obligation upon bona fide news programming to encourage increased news coverage of political campaign activity.” Congress gave the FCC leeway to interpret the scope of bona fide news exemptions.

Referring to its 1988 ruling on Entertainment Tonight and Entertainment This Week, the FCC said it found that “the principal consideration should be ‘whether the program reports news of some area of current events… in a manner similar to more traditional newscasts.’ The Commission has thus declined to evaluate the relative quality or significance of the topics and stories selected for newscast coverage, relying instead on the broadcaster’s good faith news judgment.”

Carr’s allegations

Carr alleged in November 2024 that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live before the election was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule.” In fact, NBC gave Trump two free 60-second messages in order to comply with the rule.

Carr didn’t cite any specific incidents on The View or late-night shows that would violate the FCC rule. The View has addressed its attempts to get Trump on the show, however. Executive Producer Brian Teta told Deadline in April 2024, “We’ve invited Trump to join us at the table for both 2016 and 2020 elections, and he declined, and at a certain point, we stopped asking. So I don’t anticipate that changing. I think he’s pretty familiar with how the co-hosts feel about him and doesn’t see himself coming here.”

The Kimmel controversy erupted over a monologue in which he said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.”

With accused murderer Tyler Robinson being described as having liberal views, Carr and other conservatives alleged that Kimmel misled viewers. Carr appeared on right-wing commentator Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday and said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Nexstar and Sinclair, two major owners of TV stations, both urged ABC to take action against Kimmel and said their stations would not air his show. The pressure from broadcasters is happening at a time when both Nexstar and ABC owner Disney are seeking Trump administration approval for mergers.

Democrats accuse Carr of hypocrisy on First Amendment

Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the Republican-majority FCC, said yesterday that Carr overstepped his authority, but “billion-dollar companies with pending business before the agency” are “vulnerable to pressure to bend to the government’s ideological demands.”

Democratic lawmakers criticized Carr and proposed investigations into the chair for abuse of authority. “It is not simply unacceptable for the FCC chairman to threaten a media organization because he does not like the content of its programming—it violates the First Amendment that you claim to champion,” Senate Democrats wrote in a letter to Carr. “The FCC’s role in overseeing the public airwaves does not give it the power to act as a roving press censor, targeting broadcasters based on their political commentary. But under your leadership, the FCC is being weaponized to do precisely that.”

Democrats pointed to some of Carr’s previous statements in which he decried government censorship. During his 2023 re-confirmation proceedings, Senate Democrats asked Carr about social media posts in which he accused Democrats of engaging in censorship like “what you’d see in the Soviet Union.”

“I posted those tweets in the context of expressing my view on the First Amendment that debate on matters of public interest should be robust, uninhibited, and wide open,” Carr wrote in his response to Democratic senators. “I believe that the best remedy to speech that someone does not like or finds objectionable is more speech. I posted them because I believe that a newsroom’s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should, consistent with the First Amendment, be beyond the reach of any government official.”

Years earlier, in 2019, Carr posted a tweet that said, “Should the government censor speech it doesn’t like? Of course not. The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the ‘public interest.'”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also criticized Carr’s approach, saying it would lead to the same tactics being used against Republicans the next time Democrats are in power.

Carr to broadcasters: Give your licenses back to FCC

Carr said this week he’s only addressing licensed broadcasters, which have public-interest obligations, as opposed to cable and streaming services that don’t need FCC licenses. Network programming itself doesn’t need an FCC license, but the TV stations that carry network shows require licenses.

Carr tried to cast Kimmel’s suspension as the result of organic pressure from licensed broadcasters, rather than FCC coercion. “There’s no untoward coercion happening here,” Carr told Jennings. “The market was intended to function this way, where local TV stations get to push back.”

But TV station owners did so in exactly the way that Carr urged them to. “The individual licensed stations that are taking their content, it’s time for them to step up and say this garbage isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities,” Carr said on Johnson’s podcast. Carr said that Kimmel’s monologue “appears to be some of the sickest conduct possible.”

On the Jennings show, Carr alleged that Democrats in the previous administration implemented “a two-tiered weaponized system of justice,” and that his FCC is instead giving everyone “a fair shake and even-handed treatment.”

Carr has repeatedly threatened broadcasters with the FCC’s rarely enforced news distortion policy. As we’ve explained, the FCC technically has no rule or regulation against news distortion, which is why it is called a policy and not a rule. But on Jennings’ show, he described it as a rule.

“We do have those rules at the FCC: If you engage in news distortion, we can take action,” Carr said.

As we’ve written several times, it is difficult legally for the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses. But it isn’t difficult for Carr to exert pressure on networks and broadcasters through public statements. Carr suggested yesterday that broadcasters turn in their licenses if they don’t like his approach to enforcement.

“If you’re a broadcaster and you don’t like being held accountable for the first time in a long time through the public interest standard, that’s fine. You can turn your license in to the FCC, we’ll find something else to do with it,” Carr said. “Or you can go to Congress and say, ‘I don’t want the FCC having public interest obligations on broadcasters anymore, I want broadcasters to be like cable, to be like a streaming service.’ That’s fine too. But as long as that’s the system that Congress has created, we’re going to enforce it.”

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

After getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended, FCC chair threatens ABC’s The View Read More »

FCC chair teams up with Ted Cruz to block Wi-Fi hotspots for schoolkids

brendan carr, FCC, Policy, ted cruz, wi-fi / Mike M. / September 4, 2025

“Chairman Carr’s moves today are very unfortunate as they further signal that the Commission is no longer prioritizing closing the digital divide,” Schwartzman said. “In the 21st Century, education doesn’t stop when a student leaves school and today’s actions could lead to many students having a tougher time completing homework assignments because their families lack Internet access.”

Biden FCC expanded school and library program

Under then-Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC expanded its E-Rate program in 2024 to let schools and libraries use Universal Service funding to lend out Wi-Fi hotspots and services that could be used off-premises. The FCC previously distributed Wi-Fi hotspots and other Internet access technology under pandemic-related spending authorized by Congress in 2021, but that program ended. The new hotspot lending program was supposed to begin this year.

Carr argues that when the Congressionally approved program ended, the FCC lost its authority to fund Wi-Fi hotspots for use outside of schools and libraries. “I dissented from both decisions at the time, and I am now pleased to circulate these two items, which will end the FCC’s illegal funding [of] unsupervised screen time for young kids,” he said.

Under Rosenworcel, the FCC said the Communications Act gives it “broad and flexible authority to establish rules governing the equipment and services that will be supported for eligible schools and libraries, as well as to design the specific mechanisms of support.”

The E-Rate program can continue providing telecom services to schools and libraries despite the hotspot component being axed. E-Rate disbursed about $1.75 billion in 2024, but could spend more based on demand because it has a funding cap of about $5 billion per year. E-Rate and other Universal Service programs are paid for through fees imposed on phone companies, which typically pass the cost on to consumers.

FCC chair teams up with Ted Cruz to block Wi-Fi hotspots for schoolkids Read More »

Delete, Delete, Delete: How FCC Republicans are killing rules faster than ever

brendan carr, direct final rule, FCC, fcc delete delete delete, Features, Policy / Shannon Garcia / September 2, 2025

FCC speeds up rule-cutting, giving public as little as 10 days to file objections.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on May 21, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images | John McDonnell

The Federal Communications Commission’s Republican chairman is eliminating regulations at breakneck speed by using a process that cuts dozens of rules at a time while giving the public only 10 or 20 days to review each proposal and submit objections.

Chairman Brendan Carr started his “Delete, Delete, Delete” rule-cutting initiative in March and later announced he’d be using the Direct Final Rule (DFR) mechanism to eliminate regulations without a full public-comment period. Direct Final Rule is just one of several mechanisms the FCC is using in the Delete, Delete, Delete initiative. But despite the seeming obscurity of regulations deleted under Direct Final Rule so far, many observers are concerned that the process could easily be abused to eliminate more significant rules that protect consumers.

On July 24, the FCC removed what it called “11 outdated and useless rule provisions” related to telegraphs, rabbit-ear broadcast receivers, and phone booths. The FCC said the 11 provisions consist of “39 regulatory burdens, 7,194 words, and 16 pages.”

The FCC eliminated these rules without the “prior notice and comment” period typically used to comply with the US Administrative Procedure Act (APA), with the FCC finding that it had “good cause” to skip that step. The FCC said it would allow comment for 10 days and that rule eliminations would take effect automatically after the 10-day period unless the FCC concluded that it received “significant adverse comments.”

On August 7, the FCC again used Direct Final Rule to eliminate 98 rules and requirements imposed on broadcasters. This time, the FCC allowed 20 days for comment. But it maintained its stance that the rules would be deleted automatically at the end of the period if no “significant” comments were received.

By contrast, FCC rulemakings usually allow 30 days for initial comments and another 15 days for reply comments. The FCC then considers the comments, responds to the major issues raised, and drafts a final proposal that is put up for a commission vote. This process, which takes months and gives both the public and commissioners more opportunity to consider the changes, can apply both to the creation of new rules and the elimination of existing ones.

FCC’s lone Democrat warns of “Trojan horse”

Telecom companies want the FCC to eliminate rules quickly. As we’ve previously written, AT&T submitted comments to the Delete, Delete, Delete docket urging the agency to eliminate rules that can result in financial penalties “without the delay imposed by notice-and-comment proceeding.”

Carr’s use of Direct Final Rule has drawn criticism from advocacy groups, local governments that could be affected by rule changes, and the FCC’s only Democratic commissioner. Anna Gomez, the lone FCC Democrat, told Ars in a phone interview that the rapid rule-cutting method “could be a Trojan horse because what we did, or what the commission did, is it adopted a process without public comment to eliminate any rule it finds to be outdated and, crucially, unwarranted. We don’t define what either of those terms mean, which therefore could lead to a situation that’s ripe for abuse.”

Gomez said she’d “be concerned if we eliminated rules that are meant to protect or inform consumers, or to promote competition, such as the broadband labels. This commission seems to have entirely lost its focus on consumers.”

Gomez told us that she doesn’t think a 10-day comment period is ever appropriate and that Carr seems to be trying “to meet some kind of arbitrary rule reduction quota.” If the rules being eliminated are truly obsolete, “then what’s the rush?” she asked. “If we don’t give sufficient time for public comment, then what happens when we make a mistake? What happens when we eliminate rules and it turns out, in fact, that these rules were important to keep? That’s why we give the public due process to comment on when we adopt rules and when we eliminate rules.”

Gomez hasn’t objected to the specific rules deleted under this process so far, but she spoke out against the method used by Carr both times Direct Final Rule method was used. “I told the chairman that I could support initiating a proceeding to look at how a Direct Final Rule process could be used going forward and including a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to eliminate the rules the draft order purports to eliminate today. That offer was declined,” she said in her dissenting statement in the July vote.

Gomez said that rules originally adopted under a notice-and-comment process should not be eliminated “without seeking public comment on appropriate processes and guardrails.” She added that the “order does not limit the Direct Final Rule process to elimination of rules that are objectively obsolete with a clear definition of how that will be applied, asserting instead authority to remove rules that are ‘outdated or unwarranted.'”

Local governments object

Carr argued that the Administrative Procedure Act “gives the commission the authority to fast-track the elimination of rules that inarguably fail to serve the public interest. Using this authority, the Commission can forgo the usual prior notice and public comment period before repealing the rules for these bygone regulations.”

Carr justified the deletions by saying that “outdated and unnecessary regulations from Washington often derail efforts to build high-speed networks and infrastructure across the country.” It’s not clear why the specific rule deletions were needed to accelerate broadband deployment, though. As Carr said, the FCC’s first use of Direct Finale Rule targeted regulations for “telegraph services, rabbit-ear broadcast receivers, and telephone booths—technologies that were considered outdated decades ago.”

Carr’s interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act is wrong, said an August 6 filing submitted by local governments in Maryland, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Oregon, Virginia, California, New York, and Texas. Direct Final Rule “is intended for extremely simple, non-substantive decisions,” and the FCC process “is insufficient to ensure that future Commission decisions will fall within the good cause exception of the Administrative Procedure Act,” the filing said.

Local governments argued that “the new procedure is itself a substantive decision” and should be subject to a full notice-and-comment rulemaking. “The procedure adopted by the Commission makes it almost inevitable that the Commission will adopt rule changes outside of any APA exceptions,” the filing said.

The FCC could face court challenges. Gerard Lavery Lederer, a lawyer for the local government coalition, told Ars, “we fully anticipate that Chairman Carr and the FCC’s general counsel will take our concerns seriously.” But he also said local governments are worried about the FCC adopting industry proposals that “violate local government rights as preserved by Congress in the [Communications] Act” or that have “5th Amendment takings implications and/or 10th Amendment overreach issues.”

Is that tech really “obsolete”?

At least some rules targeted for deletion, like regulations on equipment used by radio and TV broadcast stations, may seem too arcane to care about. But a coalition of 22 public interest, civil rights, labor, and digital rights groups argued in a July 17 letter to Carr that some of the rule deletions could harm vulnerable populations and that the shortened comment period wasn’t long enough to determine the impact.

“For example, the Commission has targeted rules relating to calling cards and telephone booths in the draft Order as ‘obsolete,'” the letter said. “However, calling cards and pay phones remain important technologies for rural areas, immigrant communities, the unhoused, and others without reliable access to modern communications services. The impact on these communities is not clear and will not likely be clear in the short time provided for comment.”

The letter also said the FCC’s new procedure “would effectively eliminate any hope for timely judicial review of elimination of a rule on delegated authority.” Actions taken via delegated authority are handled by FCC bureaus without a vote of the commission.

So far, Carr has held commission votes for his Direct Final Rule actions rather than letting FCC bureau issue orders themselves. But in the July order, the FCC said its bureaus and offices have previously adopted or repealed rules without notice and comment and “reaffirm[ed] that all Bureaus and Offices may continue to take such actions in situations that are exempt from the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements.”

“This is about pushing boundaries”

The advocacy groups’ letter said that delegating authority to bureaus “makes judicial review virtually impossible, even though the order goes into effect immediately.” Parties impacted by actions made on delegated authority can’t go straight to the courts and must instead “file an application for review with the Commission as a prerequisite to any petition for judicial review,” the letter said. The groups argued that “a Chairman that does not wish to permit judicial review of elimination of a rule through DFR may order a bureau to remove the rule, then simply refuse to take action on the application for review.”

The letter was signed by Public Knowledge; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC; the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society; the Center for Digital Democracy; Common Sense Media; the Communications Workers of America; the Electronic Privacy Information Center; HTTP; LGBT Tech; the Media Access Project; MediaJustice; the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council; the National Action Network; NBJC; the National Council of Negro Women; the National Digital Inclusion Alliance; the National Hispanic Media Coalition; the National Urban League; New America’s Open Technology Institute (OTI); The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; the United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry; and UnidosUS.

Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Ars that the FCC “has a long record of thinking that things are obsolete and then discovering when they run an actual proceeding that there are people still using these things.” Feld is worried that the Direct Final Rule process could be used to eliminate consumer protections that apply to old phone networks when they are replaced by either fiber or wireless service.

“I certainly think that this is about pushing boundaries,” Feld said. When there’s a full notice-and-comment period, the FCC has to “actually address every argument made” before eliminating a rule. When the FCC provides less explanation of a decision, that “makes it much harder to challenge on appeal,” he said.

“Once you have this tool that lets you just get rid of rules without the need to do a proceeding, without the need to address the comments that are raised in that proceeding… it’s easy to see how this ramps up and how hard it is for people to stay constantly alert to look for an announcement where they will then only have 10 days to respond once it gets published,” he said.

What is a “significant” comment?

The FCC says its use of Direct Final Rule is guided by December 2024 recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), a government agency. But the FCC didn’t implement Direct Final Rule in the exact way recommended by the ACUS.

The ACUS said its guidance “encourages agencies to use direct final rulemaking, interim final rulemaking, and alternative methods of public engagement to ensure robust public participation even when they rely properly on the good cause exemption.” But the ACUS recommended taking public comment for at least 30 days, while the FCC has used 10- and 20-day periods.

The ACUS also said that agencies should only move ahead with rule deletions “if no significant adverse comments are received.” If such comments are received, the agency “can either withdraw the rule or publish a regular proposed rule that is open for public comment,” the recommendation said.

The FCC said that if it receives comments, “we will evaluate whether they are significant adverse comments that warrant further procedures before changing the rules.” The letter from 22 advocacy groups said it is worried about the leeway the FCC is giving itself in defining whether a comment is adverse and significant:

Although ACUS recommends that the agency revert to standard notice-and-comment rulemaking in the event of a single adverse comment, the draft Order requires multiple adverse comments—at which point the bureau/Commission will consider whether to shift to notice-and-comment rulemaking. If the bureau/Commission decides that adverse comments are not ‘substantive,’ it will explain its determination in a public notice that will not be filed in the Federal Register. The Commission states that it will be guided, but not bound, by the definition of ‘adverse comment’ recommended by ACUS.

Criticism from many corners

TechFreedom, a libertarian-leaning think tank, said it supports Carr’s goals in the “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative but objected to the Direct Final Rule process. TechFreedom wrote in July comments that “deleting outdated regulations via a Direct Final Rule is unprecedented at the FCC.”

“No such process exists under current FCC rules,” the group said, urging the agency to seek public comment on the process. “If the Commission wishes to establish a new method by which it can eliminate existing regulations without undertaking a full rulemaking proceeding, it should open a docket specific to that subject and seek public comment,” the filing said.

TechFreedom said it is especially important for the FCC to “seek comment as to when the direct final rule procedures should be invoked… What is ‘routine,’ ‘insignificant,’ or ‘inconsequential’ and who is to decide—the Commissioners or the Bureau chiefs?”

The American Library Association and other groups wrote on August 14 that either 10 or 20 days is not long enough for public comment. Moreover, the groups said the two Direct Final Rule actions so far “offer minimal explanation for why the rules are being removed. There is only one sentence describing elimination of many rules and each rule removal is described in a footnote with a parenthetical about the change. It is not enough.”

The Utility Reform Network offered similar objections about the process and said that the FCC declaring technologies to be “obsolete” and markets “outdated” without a detailed explanation “suggests the Commission’s view that these rules are not minor or technical changes but support a larger deregulatory effort that should itself be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking.”

The National Consumer Law Center and other groups said that “rushing regulatory changes as proposed is likely illegal in many instances, counterproductive, and bad policy,” and that “changes to regulations should be effectuated only through careful, thoughtful, and considered processes.”

We contacted Chairman Carr’s office and did not receive a response.

FCC delegated key decisions to bureaus

Gomez told Ars that Direct Final Rule could serve a purpose “with the right procedures and guardrails in place.” For example, she said the quick rule deletions can be justified for eliminating rules that have become obsolete because of a court reversal or Congressional actions.

“I would argue that we cannot, under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution, simply eliminate rules because we’ve made a judgment call that they are unwarranted,” she said. “That does not meet the good cause exemption to notice-and-comment requirements.”

Gomez also opposes FCC bureaus making significant decisions without a commission vote, which effectively gives Carr more power over the agency’s operations. For example, T-Mobile’s purchase of US Cellular’s wireless operations and Verizon’s purchase of Frontier were approved by the FCC at the Bureau level.

In another instance cited by Gomez, the FCC Media Bureau waived a requirement for broadcast licensees to file their biennial ownership reports for 18 months. “The waiver order, which was done at the bureau level on delegated authority, simply said ‘we find good cause to waive these rules.’ There was no analysis whatsoever,” Gomez said.

Gomez also pointed out that the Carr FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau delayed implementation of certain price caps on prison phone services. The various bureau-level decisions are a “stretching of the guardrails that we have internally for when things should be done on delegated authority, and when they should be voted by the commission,” Gomez said. “I’m concerned that [Direct Final Rule] is just the next iteration of the same issue.”

Delete, Delete, Delete: How FCC Republicans are killing rules faster than ever Read More »

How the Trump FCC justified requiring a “bias monitor” at CBS

brendan carr, Paramount Skydance, Policy, Trump CBS / Mike M. / July 29, 2025

Paramount/Skydance merger

Trump FCC claims there’s precedent for CBS ombudsman, but it’s a weak one.

The Federal Communications Commission’s approval of CBS owner Paramount’s $8 billion merger with Skydance came with a condition to install an ombudsman, which FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has described as a “bias monitor.” It appears that the bias monitor will make sure the news company’s reporting meets standards demanded by President Donald Trump.

“One of the things they’re going to have to do is put an ombudsman in place for two years, so basically a bias monitor that will report directly to the president [of Paramount],” Carr told Newsmax on Thursday, right after the FCC announced its approval of the merger.

The Carr FCC claims there is precedent for such a bias monitor. But the precedent cited in last week’s merger approval points to a very different case involving NBC and GE, one in which an ombudsman was used to protect NBC’s editorial independence from interference by its new owner.

By contrast, it looks like Paramount is hiring a monitor to make sure that CBS reporting doesn’t anger President Trump. Paramount obtained the FCC’s merger approval only after reaching a $16 million settlement with Trump, who sued the company because he didn’t like how CBS edited a pre-election interview with Kamala Harris. Trump claimed last week that Paramount is providing another $20 million worth of “advertising, PSAs, or similar programming,” and called the deal “another in a long line of VICTORIES over the Fake News Media.”

NBC/GE precedent was “viewpoint-neutral”

The FCC merger approval says that “to promote transparency and increased accountability, Skydance will have in place, for a period of at least two years, an ombudsman who reports to the President of New Paramount, and who will receive and evaluate any complaints of bias or other concerns involving CBS.”

The Carr FCC apparently couldn’t find a precedent that would closely match the ombudsman condition being imposed on Paramount. The above sentence has a footnote citing the FCC’s January 2011 approval of Comcast’s purchase of NBCUniversal, saying the Obama-era order found “such a mechanism effective in preventing editorial bias in the operation of the NBC broadcast network.”

But in 2011, the FCC said the purpose of the ombudsman was to ensure that NBC’s reporting would not be altered to fit the business interests of its owner. The FCC said at the time:

The Applicants state that, since GE’s acquisition of NBC in 1986, GE has ensured that the content of NBC’s news and public affairs programming is not influenced by the non-media interests of GE. Under this policy, which was noted with favor when the Commission approved GE’s acquisition of NBC, NBC and its O&O [owned and operated] stations have been free to report about GE without interference or influence. In addition, GE appointed an ombudsman to further ensure that the policy of independence of NBCU’s news operations would be maintained. Although the Applicants contend there is no legal requirement that they do so, they offer to maintain this policy and to retain the ombudsman position in the post-transaction entity to ensure the continued journalistic integrity and independence of NBCU’s news operations.

The NBC/GE condition “was a viewpoint-neutral economic measure. It did not matter if the content had a pro or con position on any political or regulatory issue, but only whether it might have been broadcast to promote GE’s pecuniary interests,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a longtime attorney and advocate who specializes in media and telecommunications policy. Schwartzman told Ars today that the NBC/GE condition cited by the Carr FCC is “very different from the viewpoint-based nature of the CBS condition.”

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the commission’s only Democrat, said the agency is “imposing never-before-seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment, in direct violation of the First Amendment and the law.”

FCC: Trump lawsuit totally unrelated

The FCC’s merger approval order said that “the now-settled lawsuit filed by President Donald J. Trump against Paramount and CBS News” is “unrelated to our review of the Transaction.” But on Newsmax, Carr credited Trump with forcing changes at CBS and other media outlets.

“For years, people cowed down to the executives behind these companies based in Hollywood and New York, and they just accepted that these national broadcasters could dictate how people think about topics, that they could set the narrative for the country—and President Trump fundamentally rejected it,” Carr said. “He smashed the facade that these are gatekeepers that can determine what people think. Everything we’re seeing right now flows from that decision by President Trump, and he’s winning. PBS has been defunded. NPR has been defunded. CBS is committing to restoring fact-based journalism… President Trump stood up to these legacy media gatekeepers and now their business models are falling apart.”

Carr went on Fox News to discuss the CBS cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s show, saying that “all of this is downstream of President Trump’s decision to stand up, and he stood up for the American people because the American people do not trust these legacy gatekeepers anymore.” Carr also wrote in a post on X, “The partisan left’s ritualist wailing and gnashing of teeth over Colbert is quite revealing. They’re acting like they’re losing a loyal DNC spokesperson that was entitled to an exemption from the laws of economics.”

Warren: “Bribery is illegal no matter who is president”

In a July 22 letter to Carr, Skydance said it “will ensure that CBS’s reporting is fair, unbiased, and fact-based.” With the installation of an ombudsman who will report to the company president, “New Paramount’s executive leadership will carefully consider any such complaints in overseeing CBS’s news programming,” the letter said, also making reference to the previous case of an ombudsman at NBC. Skydance sent another letter about its elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, complying with Carr’s demand to end such programs.

As Carr described it to Newsmax, the merging companies “made commitments to address bias and restore fact-based reporting. I think that’s so important. Look, the American public simply do not trust these legacy media broadcasters, so if they stick with that commitment, you know we’re sort of trust-but-verify mode, that’ll be a big win.”

The FCC’s merger-approval order favorably cites comments from the Center for American Rights (CAR), a conservative group that filed a news distortion complaint against CBS over the Harris interview. The group “filed a supplemental brief, in which it discusses a report by Media Research Center (MRC) concerning negative media coverage of the Trump administration,” the FCC said. “CAR asserts that the MRC report confirms that the news media generally, and CBS News in particular, is relentlessly slanted and biased. It concludes that Commission action is necessary to condition the Transaction on an end to this blatant bias.”

Although the FCC insists that the Trump lawsuit wasn’t relevant to its merger review, Carr previously made it clear that the news distortion complaint would be a factor in determining whether the merger would be approved. The FCC investigation into the Harris interview doesn’t seem to have turned up much. CBS was accused of distorting the news by airing two different answers given by Harris to the same question, but the unedited transcript and camera feeds showed that the two clips simply contained two different sentences from the same answer.

Congressional Democrats said they will investigate the circumstances of the merger, including allegations that Skydance and Paramount bribed Trump to get it approved. “Bribery is illegal no matter who is president,” Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said. “It sure looks like Skydance and Paramount paid $36 million to Donald Trump for this merger, and he’s even bragged about this crooked-looking deal… this merger must be investigated for any criminal behavior. It’s an open question whether the Trump administration’s approval of this merger was the result of a bribe.”

How the Trump FCC justified requiring a “bias monitor” at CBS Read More »

Skydance deal allows Trump’s FCC to “censor speech” and “silence dissent” on CBS

brendan carr, CBS, dei, Donald Trump, FCC, First Amendment, freedom of the press, paramount, Policy, sky dance / Shannon Garcia / July 25, 2025

Warning that the “Paramount payout” and “reckless” acquisition approval together mark a “dark chapter” for US press freedom, Gomez suggested the FCC’s approval will embolden “those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage.”

FCC terms also govern Skydance hiring decisions

Gomez further criticized the FCC for overstepping its authority in “intervening in employment matters reserved for other government entities with proper jurisdiction on these issues” by requiring Skydance commitments to not establish any DEI programs, which Carr derided as “invidious.” But Gomez countered that “this agency is undermining legitimate efforts to combat discrimination and expand opportunity” by meddling in private companies’ employment decisions.

Ultimately, commissioner Olivia Trusty joined Carr in voting to stamp the agency’s approval, celebrating the deal as “lawful” and a “win” for American “jobs” and “storytelling.” Carr suggested the approval would bolster Paramount’s programming by injecting $1.5 billion into operations, which Trusty said would help Paramount “compete with dominant tech platforms.”

Gomez conceded that she was pleased that at least—unlike the Verizon/T-Mobile merger—Carr granted her request to hold a vote, rather than burying “the outcome of backroom negotiations” and “granting approval behind closed doors, under the cover of bureaucratic process.”

“The public has a right to know how Paramount’s capitulation evidences an erosion of our First Amendment protections,” Gomez said.

Outvoted 2–1, Gomez urged “companies, journalists, and citizens” to take up the fight and push back on the Trump administration, emphasizing that “unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America.”

Skydance deal allows Trump’s FCC to “censor speech” and “silence dissent” on CBS Read More »

FCC Republican resigns, leaving agency with just two commissioners

brendan carr, FCC, geoffrey starks, nathan simington, Policy / Beth Washington / June 5, 2025

Two commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission are resigning at the end of this week. For at least a little while, the FCC will have just two members: Chairman Brendan Carr, a Republican chosen by Trump to lead the agency, and Anna Gomez, a Democratic commissioner.

Democrat Geoffrey Starks announced in March that he would leave in the near future, and today he said that Friday will be his final day. Starks’ departure could have given Carr a 2-1 Republican majority, but it turns out Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington will leave at the same time as Starks.

“I will be concluding my tenure at the Federal Communications Commission at the end of this week,” Simington announced today. “It has been the greatest honor of my professional life to serve the American people as a Commissioner. I am deeply honored to have been entrusted with this responsibility by President Donald J. Trump during his first term.”

Bloomberg reported in March that Simington “has also wanted to depart to take on different work,” but he didn’t announce his resignation until today. While the Carr FCC is going from a 2-2 partisan split to a 1-1 split, Carr isn’t likely to have to wait as long for a majority as his predecessor did.

FCC Republican resigns, leaving agency with just two commissioners Read More »

ISPs and robocallers love the FCC plan to “delete” as many rules as possible

brendan carr, FCC, Policy / Beth Washington / April 15, 2025

FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” docket is filled with requests to eliminate rules.

Credit: Getty Images | simonkr

Industry groups have submitted deregulatory wishlists for the Federal Communications Commission’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative that aims to eliminate as many regulations as possible.

Broadband providers that want fewer telecom regulations and debt collectors opposed to robocall rules were among those submitting comments to the FCC in response to Chairman Brendan Carr’s request for public input. The Carr-led FCC last month issued a public notice asking for help with “identifying FCC rules for the purpose of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.”

The FCC said it opened the official proceeding—which is titled “Delete, Delete, Delete”—because “President Trump has called on administrative agencies to unleash prosperity through deregulation and ensure that they are efficiently delivering great results for the American people.” Initial comments were due on Friday, and there is an April 28 deadline for reply comments.

The docket has comments submitted by AT&T, Verizon, and the top lobbying groups for the cable, telecom, and mobile broadband industries. Starlink-owner SpaceX and Amazon’s Kuiper submitted wishlists for satellite deregulation. The FCC also received deregulatory requests from prison phone company Securus, TV broadcasters, and multiple groups that want less strict robocall rules.

Carr has long been an advocate for removing broadband and telecom regulations, so rule-cutting requests submitted by Internet providers and their lobby groups probably have a good chance of being implemented. But Carr isn’t against regulations of all types: he has controversially sought to increase enforcement of content policies against news stations accused of bias against conservatives and Trump and has supported many actions against robocallers.

Carr has already started making it easier for telcos to turn off old copper phone and DSL networks, as we reported last month. AT&T and Verizon want additional rule-cutting when it comes to maintaining old networks, and it appears that Delete, Delete, Delete could achieve that and a lot more.

The urgency to delete regulations may have increased since Carr opened the proceeding because Trump last week issued an executive order directing agency heads to quickly identify regulations for removal.

Longshot bid to end news-distortion policy

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) submitted a longshot request for the FCC to eliminate its news-distortion policy. As we explained in a feature article, Carr is invoking this rarely enforced policy to probe broadcast news decisions, such as how CBS edited an interview with Kamala Harris. Carr’s aggressive use of the news-distortion policy has drawn condemnations from both liberal and conservative advocacy groups.

The NAB said that “the news distortion policy does not pass legal and constitutional muster… the policy is not based on any explicit statutory mandate, and therefore it is questionable whether the FCC has authority to enforce it.” The NAB further said the policy “is contrary to the public interest and the First Amendment… impermissibly chills speech and discourages coverage of important public issues, … places the Commission into the intrusive and constitutionally suspect role of scrutinizing program content and the editorial choices of broadcasters.”

Carr’s elimination of the policy would be an abrupt change of course. That doesn’t mean the NAB will get nothing out of Delete, Delete, Delete, as the group also asked for various other changes. For example, the NAB said the FCC should eliminate rules limiting ownership of broadcast television stations and other rules related to broadcast licensing. The conservative broadcast company Sinclair submitted a filing with similar requests to eliminate or relax ownership and licensing rules.

AT&T: Stop punishing us

AT&T’s comments ask the FCC to halt enforcement proceedings that could result in financial penalties, saying that a Supreme Court ruling “calls into serious question the constitutionality” of the FCC’s enforcement regime. AT&T was referring to the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.”

“Under the Court’s clear reasoning in Jarkesy, the Commission’s practice of imposing monetary ‘forfeitures’ without affording targets the right to a jury trial violates the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. The Commission should eliminate rules that impose such unlawful financial penalties,” AT&T said.

As we reported in November, AT&T and Verizon used this same argument in court to claim that the FCC cannot issue fines against the carriers for selling user location data.

AT&T’s new filing asks the FCC to “close long-pending investigations and other open proceedings that exceed the Commission’s authority.” AT&T also asked the FCC to eliminate several roaming obligations that apply to wireless carriers.

Relaxing robocall consent

ACA International, a trade group for the debt collection industry, asked the FCC to revoke the “revoke all” rule that makes it easier for consumers to opt out of unwanted communications. ACA International said that under the revoke all rule, “a request to revoke consent by whatever channel requires cessation of all contact by any other communication channel that requires prior consent.”

“Per the revoke all rule, callers must stop all future contacts for which consent is required in response to a single revocation request. Thus, if a consumer replies to a text message requesting that the caller stop future texts, the caller must also stop future calls if consent is required,” the group said. Additionally, a “request to stop a telemarketing call stops all informational robocalls or robotexts.”

ACA International claimed the rule harms customers who have overdue payments on several accounts. The “revoke all” rule “puts consumers in jeopardy because they may be deprived of the opportunity to resolve outstanding debts, leaving them exposed to litigation or worsening of the consumer’s credit rating,” the group said.

ACA International also asked the FCC to allow robocalls when there is an “established business relationship” between the customer and business. In 2012, the FCC decided to require telemarketers to obtain prior consent from users even when there is an established business relationship. ACA International complained that its members must follow “a dizzying array of restrictions that require callers to expend enormous resources to ensure compliance” and said the FCC should “eliminate the 2012 rule barring use of the [established business relationship] for calls and texts and restore the exemption.”

Another robocall request came from the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. The group said that under current rules, a consumer opting out from appointment reminders “would also revoke the business’s consent to send marketing messages and other informational messages related to prescriptions or other health alerts, potentially harming consumers, even though the consumer signed up for each program separately.”

“Rather than treating a consumer’s revocation message as a universal opt-out to all types of nonexempt messages, we urge the FCC to adopt a presumption that a revocation message is limited to the specific message program to which the consumer replies,” the group said.

Verizon wants to lock phones for longer

Verizon asked the FCC to eliminate a rule that requires it to unlock mobile phones so that they can be used on other networks. “The rule applies only to a minority of wireless providers (mainly Verizon), creating an unlevel playing field in a critical US industry,” Verizon said.

Verizon was referring to open access requirements in C Block 700 MHz wireless spectrum. Verizon agreed to follow the spectrum-specific rules when it purchased licenses to use the C Block in 2008.

The rule “requires Verizon (and not other major wireless providers) to unlock mobile devices within 60 days,” Verizon said. “This short period contrasts with an industry standard for prepaid service of at least six months and for postpaid service a requirement that the device is first paid in full. This has made Verizon a prime target of international criminal rings who obtain heavily subsidized devices in the US through illicit means and then sell them at a significant profit in other parts of the world.”

The FCC in 2019 granted Verizon a partial waiver allowing the 60-day locking period to fight fraud, but Verizon says the exemption isn’t enough. “For example, even with a 60-day locking period, Verizon estimates that it lost 784,703 devices to fraud in 2023 alone, which resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars lost, and this occurs annually,” Verizon said.

Under the Biden administration, the FCC proposed a 60-day unlocking requirement that would apply to all wireless providers. That would help put Verizon on equal regulatory footing with the other major carriers, but the proposal is still pending. AT&T’s comments asked the FCC to close this handset unlocking proceeding without adopting new rules.

Verizon also asked the FCC to ditch some rules related to submitting broadband mapping data. For example, Verizon wants the FCC to end a requirement to create in-vehicle coverage maps. “Requiring both stationary and in-vehicle maps doubles the number of maps wireless providers must create,” Verizon said, arguing that rules of this type “impose costs that far exceed the marginal benefits of the data they provide.”

Many more telecom requests

A filing from cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association discussed last year’s Supreme Court decision that eliminated the Chevron precedent under which agencies were given broad leeway to interpret ambiguous laws. “In the old Chevron world, rules were adopted that extended statutory provisions beyond their scope,” the NCTA said. “Many of these Commission interpretations were then upheld on review based on the now-repudiated premise that courts were required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.”

The NCTA acknowledged that the Supreme Court did not overturn prior cases that relied on Chevron deference but said the court “did not foreclose the ability of an agency to revisit its own prior orders and to eliminate or modify existing rules that exceed its statutory authority.”

In the NCTA’s view, one such rule that should be eliminated requires cable and satellite TV providers to specify the “all-in” price of services in ads and promotional materials. The rule was adopted last year to stop the TV-provider practice of using hidden fees, like Broadcast TV and Regional Sports Network charges, to conceal the full cost of video service.

“Adoption of the rule is a prime example of the Commission exceeding the bounds of the authority delegated to it by Congress,” the NCTA argued. The FCC rule goes beyond what Congress required in a 2019 law that said video providers must disclose the all-in price at the point of sale and in writing within 24 hours of a customer obtaining service, the NCTA said.

Carr is likely to listen closely to this argument—he dissented from last year’s rulemaking, saying the order “strays markedly from our statutory authority” and that “Congress considered and ultimately rejected extending the law to advertisements.”

The FCC received other rule-elimination requests from USTelecom and the wireless industry group CTIA. The FCC also heard from a group called the 21st Century Privacy Coalition—which was created by telecom industry members to lobby against strict privacy rules. The group has said its members include AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, Cox, CTIA, NCTA, T-Mobile, USTelecom, and Verizon.

The 21st Century Privacy Coalition told the FCC that a number of its rules on Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) “exceed the Commission’s statutory authority, are substantially outdated, and impose unnecessary and burdensome costs on telecommunications carriers without providing consumers with corresponding benefits.”

SpaceX asked the FCC to relax space station and earth station licensing procedures to make it easier to deploy low-Earth satellite networks like Starlink. SpaceX also said the FCC should “modernize outdated protections for legacy GSO [geostationary orbit] systems.” Amazon’s Kuiper Systems said that numerous regulations are “ripe for deleting or streamlining” in order to “reduce regulatory burdens on the satellite industry.”

Prison phone company Securus, meanwhile, wants a do-over of a 2024 order that lowered the prices of prison phone calls. The company said the FCC should reassess a prohibition “on the use of regulated revenue to fund critical safety and security measures, including recording, storage, and live monitoring, which is creating havoc for many law enforcement agencies.”

Securus also wants the FCC to lift a ban on “ancillary” charges that drive up the prices paid by prisoners and their families. Carr generally supported that 2024 order but expressed some concerns about the rate structure chosen by the FCC.

Scalpel or chainsaw?

Decisions to eliminate rules can be challenged in court. TechFreedom, a libertarian-leaning think tank, supported the goals of “Delete, Delete, Delete” but cautioned the FCC to move deliberately so that its actions don’t get overturned by judges.

“The FCC should be wary of overreach, as it may not survive appellate scrutiny under the Major Questions Doctrine,” the group said.

AT&T wants the FCC to move as fast as possible, as it urged the agency to overhaul its enforcement regime “without the delay imposed by notice-and-comment proceeding.” AT&T pointed to a Trump memorandum that said “agencies shall immediately take steps to effectuate the repeal of any regulation, or the portion of any regulation, that clearly exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or is otherwise unlawful.”

But TechFreedom said that US law “generally requires notice and comment rulemakings for changes to substantive rules.” There is a “good cause” exemption, but courts have only recognized this exemption “in limited circumstances, such as emergencies or where prior notice would subvert the statutory scheme.”

“When in doubt, the agency should seek public comments to ensure that it accounts for potential reliance interests upon the existing rule,” TechFreedom said.

Anna Gomez, a Democratic commissioner at the FCC, has urged a measured approach. “We want to take a scalpel, not a chainsaw, to the rules of protecting consumers and promoting competition,” she said at a conference last week, according to Light Reading.

Carr seems eager to push ahead with rule deletions. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the Administration is unleashing a new wave of economic opportunity by ending the regulatory onslaught from Washington,” Carr said when he announced the plan. “For too long, administrative agencies have added new regulatory requirements in excess of their authority or kept lawful regulations in place long after their shelf life had expired… The FCC is committed to ending all of the rules and regulations that are no longer necessary.”

ISPs and robocallers love the FCC plan to “delete” as many rules as possible Read More »

FCC head Brendan Carr tells Europe to get on board with Starlink

brendan carr, EU, FCC, Policy, satellite broadband, starlink, syndication, Trump / DJ Henderson / April 15, 2025

He also accused the European Commission of “protectionism” and an “anti-American” attitude.

“If Europe has its own satellite constellation then great, I think the more the better. But more broadly, I think Europe is caught a little bit between the US and China. And it’s sort of time for choosing,” he said.

The European Commission said it had “always enforced and would continue to enforce laws fairly and without discrimination to all companies operating in the EU, in full compliance with global rules.”

Shares in European satellite providers such as Eutelsat and SES soared in recent weeks despite the companies’ heavy debts, in response to the commission saying that Brussels “should fund Ukrainian [military] access to services that can be provided by EU-based commercial providers.”

Industry experts warned that despite the positivity, no single European network could yet compete with Starlink’s offering.

Carr said that European telecoms companies Nokia and Ericsson should move more of their manufacturing to the US as both face being hit with Trump’s import tariffs.

The two companies are the largest vendors of mobile network infrastructure equipment in the US. Carr said there had been a historic “mistake” in US industrial policy, which meant there was no significant American company competing in the telecom vendor market.

“I don’t love that current situation we’re in,” he said.

Carr added that he would “look at” granting the companies faster regulatory clearances on new technology if they moved to the US.

Last month, Ericsson chief executive Börje Ekholm told the FT the company would consider expanding manufacturing in the US depending on how potential tariffs affected it. The Swedish telecoms equipment maker first opened an American factory in Lewisville, Texas, in 2020.

“We’ve been ramping up [production in the US] already. Do we need bigger changes? We will have to see,” Ekholm added.

Nokia said that the US was the company’s “second home.”

“Around 90 percent of all US communications utilizes Nokia equipment at some point. We have five manufacturing sites and five R&D hubs in the US including Nokia Bell Labs,” they added.

Ericsson declined to comment.

FCC head Brendan Carr tells Europe to get on board with Starlink Read More »

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr starts granting telecom lobby’s wish list

brendan carr, FCC, Policy / Beth Washington / March 21, 2025

In July 2024, AT&T became the first carrier to apply for a technology transition discontinuance “under the Adequate Replacement Test relying on the applicant’s own replacement service,” the order said. “AT&T indicated in this application that it was relying on a totality of the circumstances showing to establish the adequacy of its replacement service, but also committed to the performance testing methodology and parameters established in the 2016 Technology Transitions Order Technical Appendix.” This “delay[ed] the filing of its discontinuance application for several months,” the FCC said.

Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, said the FCC clarification that carriers don’t need to perform testing, “combined with elimination of most of the remaining notice requirements, means that you don’t have to worry about actually proving anything. Just say ‘totality of the circumstances’ and by the time anyone who cares finds out, the application will be granted.”

“The one positive thing is that some states (such as California) still have carrier of last resort rules to protect consumers,” Feld told Ars. “In some states, at least, consumers will not suddenly find themselves cut off from 911 or other important services.”

Telco lobby loves FCC moves

The bureau separately approved a petition for a waiver filed last month by USTelecom, a lobby group that represents telcos such as AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink (aka Lumen). The group sought a waiver of a requirement that replacement voice services be offered on a stand-alone basis instead of only in a bundle with broadband.

While bundles cost more than single services for consumers who only want phone access, USTelecom said that “inefficiencies of offering stand-alone voice can raise costs for consumers and reduce capital available for investment and innovation.”

The FCC said granting the waiver will allow providers “to retire copper networks, not only in cases where replacement voice services are available on a stand-alone basis, but in cases where those services are available on a bundled basis.” The waiver is approved for two years and can be extended.

USTelecom President and CEO Jonathan Spalter praised the FCC actions in a statement. “Broadband providers appreciate Chairman Carr’s laser focus on cutting through red tape and outdated mindsets to accelerate the work of connecting all Americans,” Spalter said.

Just like Carr’s statement, Spalter did not use the word “fiber” when discussing replacements for copper service. He said vaguely that “today’s decision marks a significant step forward in transitioning outdated copper telephone lines to next-generation networks that better meet the needs of American consumers,” and “will help turbocharge investment in advanced broadband infrastructure, sustain and grow a skilled broadband workforce, bring countless new choices and services to more families and communities, and fuel our innovation economy.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr starts granting telecom lobby’s wish list Read More »

Trump’s FCC chair investigates NPR and PBS, urges Congress to defund them

brendan carr, npb, PBS, Policy / Beth Washington / January 31, 2025

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has ordered an investigation into NPR and PBS in a move that Democrats described as an attempt to intimidate the media.

“I am writing to inform you that I have asked the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to open an investigation regarding the airing of NPR and PBS programming across your broadcast member stations,” Carr wrote in a letter yesterday to the leaders of NPR and PBS.

Carr alleged that NPR and PBS are violating a federal law prohibiting noncommercial educational broadcast stations from running commercial advertisements. “I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials,” Carr wrote. “In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”

Carr’s letter did not provide any specific examples of underwriting announcements that might violate the law, but said the “announcements should not promote the contributor’s products, services, or businesses, and they may not contain comparative or qualitative descriptions, price information, calls to action, or inducements to buy, sell, rent, or lease.”

Carr: Defund NPR and PBS

Carr pointed out that NPR and PBS member broadcast stations are licensed by the FCC. He also stated his opposition to government funding for NPR and PBS, though he acknowledged that isn’t up to the FCC. Carr wrote:

For your awareness, I will be providing a copy of this letter to relevant Members of Congress because I believe this FCC investigation may prove relevant to an ongoing legislative debate. In particular, Congress is actively considering whether to stop requiring taxpayers to subsidize NPR and PBS programming. For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

To the extent that these taxpayer dollars are being used to support a for-profit endeavor or an entity that is airing commercial advertisements, then that would further undermine any case for continuing to fund NPR and PBS with taxpayer dollars.

The FCC’s Democratic commissioners, Anna Gomez and Geoffrey Starks, issued statements denouncing the investigation. “This appears to be yet another Administration effort to weaponize the power of the FCC. The FCC has no business intimidating and silencing broadcast media,” Gomez said.

Trump’s FCC chair investigates NPR and PBS, urges Congress to defund them Read More »

Trump’s FCC chair gets to work on punishing TV news stations accused of bias

brendan carr, Policy, Trump / DJ Henderson / January 23, 2025

Carr has made it clear that he wants the FCC to punish news broadcasters that he perceives as being unfair to Trump or Republicans in general. He claimed that NBC putting Harris on Saturday Night Live before the election was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule,” even though NBC gave Trump two free 60-second messages in order to comply with the rule.

Carr also told Fox News that he is interested in investigating the complaint against CBS when the FCC reviews a pending deal involving Skydance and Paramount, which owns and operates 28 local broadcast TV stations of the CBS Television Network. “I’m pretty confident that news distortion complaint over the CBS 60 Minutes transcript is something that is likely to arise in the context of the FCC’s review of that transaction,” Carr said.

Carr “intends to weaponize the FCC”

After Rosenworcel dismissed the complaints, the Center for American Rights said it would keep fighting. “We fundamentally believe that several actions taken by the three major networks were partisan, dishonest and designed to support Vice President Harris in her bid to become President,” the group said in a statement provided to Ars last week. “We will continue to pursue avenues to ensure the American public is protected from media manipulation of our Republic. The First Amendment does not protect intentional misrepresentation or fraud.”

In a statement applauding Carr’s reversal today, the group said that Rosenworcel’s “last-minute actions were political, not based on a principled defense of the First Amendment.”

Networks have denied allegations of bias. “Former President Donald Trump is accusing 60 Minutes of deceitful editing of our Oct. 7 interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. That is false,” CBS said. “60 Minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response.”

Rosenworcel last week also rejected a petition to deny a license renewal for WTXF-TV in Philadelphia, a station owned and operated by Fox. The Media and Democracy Project petition alleged that Fox willfully distorted news with false reports of fraud in the 2020 election that Trump lost.

Rosenworcel said the complaints and petition she dismissed “come from all corners—right and left—but what they have in common is they ask the FCC to penalize broadcast television stations because they dislike station behavior, content, or coverage.” Yesterday, advocacy group Public Knowledge said that “in reinstating just those complaints that suit his partisan agenda, Chairman Carr has made it plain he intends to weaponize the FCC to threaten political speech and news coverage he disagrees with.”

Trump’s FCC chair gets to work on punishing TV news stations accused of bias Read More »

FCC chair makes one last stand against Trump’s call to punish news stations

brendan carr, Donald Trump, FCC, jessica rosenworcel, Policy / Kelly Newman / January 16, 2025

FCC not the president’s speech police (yet)

Chair: Complaints “seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC.”

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel testifies during a House hearing on Thursday, May 16, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams

Taking action in the final days of the Biden administration, the Federal Communications Commission dismissed three complaints and a petition filed against broadcast television stations. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said the action is important because “the incoming President has called on the Federal Communications Commission to revoke licenses for broadcast television stations because he disagrees with their content and coverage.”

“Today, I have directed the FCC to take a stand on behalf of the First Amendment,” she said. “We draw a bright line at a moment when clarity about government interference with the free press is needed more than ever. The action we take makes clear two things. First, the FCC should not be the president’s speech police. Second, the FCC should not be journalism’s censor-in-chief.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s chosen replacement for Rosenworcel, Commissioner Brendan Carr, wants the FCC to punish news broadcasters that he perceives as being unfair to Trump or Republicans in general. Backing Trump’s various complaints about news stations, Carr has threatened to revoke licenses by wielding the FCC’s authority to ensure that broadcasters using public airwaves operate in the public interest.

Rosenworcel said the complaints and petition she is dismissing “come from all corners—right and left—but what they have in common is they ask the FCC to penalize broadcast television stations because they dislike station behavior, content, or coverage.” After Trump criticized CBS in October, Rosenworcel said the agency “does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

Chair: Complaints aim to “weaponize” FCC authority

The Center for American Rights filed complaints supporting Trump’s claims of bias regarding ABC’s fact-checking during a presidential debate, the editing of a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, and NBC putting Harris on a Saturday Night Live episode. Separately, the Media and Democracy Project filed a petition to deny a license renewal for WTXF-TV in Philadelphia, a station owned and operated by Fox, alleging that Fox willfully distorted news with false reports of fraud in the 2020 election that Trump lost.

Rejecting all four, Rosenworcel said “the facts and legal circumstances in each of these cases are different. But what they share is that they seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment. To do so would set a dangerous precedent. That is why we reject it here.”

Dismissing complaints isn’t likely to end the cases, said Jeffrey Westling, a lawyer at the conservative American Action Forum who has urged Congress to “limit or revoke the FCC’s authority to impose content-based restrictions on broadcast television.”

Westling said he agrees “substantively” with Rosenworcel, but added that “the DC Circuit Court has made clear that the FCC has to consider news distortion complaints (see Serafyn vs FCC) and not just dismiss them outright. If I am the complainants, I challenge these dismissals in court, win, and get more attention.”

When contacted by Ars today, the Center for American Rights provided a statement criticizing Rosenworcel’s decision as “political and self-serving.”

“We fundamentally believe that several actions taken by the three major networks were partisan, dishonest and designed to support Vice President Harris in her bid to become President,” the group said. “We will continue to pursue avenues to ensure the American public is protected from media manipulation of our Republic. The First Amendment does not protect intentional misrepresentation or fraud.”

The group previously touted the fact that Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington urged FCC leadership to take its complaints seriously.

Fox ruling will be challenged

The Media and Democracy Project criticized Rosenworcel’s decision to dismiss its complaint against the Fox station in Philadelphia.

“We look forward to presenting on appeal the multiple court decisions that raise serious questions about the Murdochs’ and Fox’s character qualifications to remain broadcast licensees,” the Media and Democracy Project said in a statement provided to Ars. “As renowned First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams stated in his filing with the Commission, the First Amendment is no bar to Commission action given the facts of this case. Our petition is clearly distinct from the other politically motivated complaints.”

The group’s petition pointed to a court ruling that found Fox News aired false statements about Dominion Voting Systems. Fox later agreed to pay Dominion $788 million to settle a defamation lawsuit.

“Our Petition to Deny is based on judicial findings that Fox made repeated false statements that undermined the electoral process and resulted in property damage, injury, and death; that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch engaged in a ‘carefully crafted scheme’ in ‘bad faith’ to deprive Lachlan’s siblings of the control to which they are entitled under an irrevocable trust; and that ‘Murdoch knowingly caused the corporation to violate the law,'” the Media and Democracy Project said today.

The FCC order denying the petition also granted the station’s application for a license renewal. The order said the allegations regarding “material carried on a cable network under common control with the Licensee that a state court found to be false” aren’t grounds to deny the individual station’s license renewal. While some “non-FCC-related misconduct” can be considered by the FCC in an evaluation of a licensee’s character, the finding in the defamation suit doesn’t qualify, the order said.

Former FCC official objects

Gigi Sohn, a longtime advocate whose nomination to the FCC was rejected by the Senate, also criticized the FCC today. Sohn, who also served as counselor for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler during the Obama administration, called the dismissal of the Fox petition a “failure to lead.”

“As [Rosenworcel] herself points out, the facts of these petitions are very different,” Sohn wrote. “The [Media and Democracy Project] petition seeks a hearing on Fox Philadelphia licenses because they allege that Fox lacks the character to hold them because it lied to the American people about the 2020 election. The conservative complaints are all based on disagreements with editorial judgments of the various broadcast networks.”

“The decision to lump these filings together and overturn years of FCC precedent that broadcasters’ character is central to holding a license is contrary to the Communications Act’s mandate that licenses be granted in ‘the public interest, convenience and necessity,'” Sohn also wrote. The FCC rationale would mean that “anything and everything a broadcast licensee does or says would be a First Amendment issue that warrants automatic license renewal,” she added.

Media advocacy group Free Press agreed with the FCC’s decision. “We have an incoming administration quite literally threatening to jail journalists for doing their jobs, and an incoming FCC chairman talking about revoking broadcast licenses any time he disagrees with their political coverage,” the group said.

Free Press sided with the FCC despite noting that the Fox case involved “false information [that] had devastating consequences in the January 6 attack on the peaceful transition of power four years ago.”

“Lies knowingly aired by Fox News Channel and some Murdoch-owned Fox affiliates present a significantly different challenge to regulators than merely fact-checking, editing or scheduling equal time for candidates in ways that displease the president-elect,” Free Press said. “Yet we agree with the urgent need to prevent the weaponization of the government against journalists and media companies on the eve of the inauguration, and in light of the dire threats the new administration poses.”

FCC chair makes one last stand against Trump’s call to punish news stations Read More »