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’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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
“The key here is not whether Broadband Internet Service Providers utilize telecommunications; it is instead whether they do so while offering to consumers the capability to do more,” Griffin wrote, concluding that “they do.”
“The FCC exceeded its statutory authority,” Griffin wrote, at one point accusing the FCC of arguing for a reading of the statute “that is too sweeping.”
The three-judge panel ordered a stay of the FCC’s order imposing net neutrality rules—known as the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order.
In a statement, FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel suggested that Congress would likely be the only path to safeguard net neutrality moving forward. In the federal register, experts noted that net neutrality is critical to boosting new applications, services, or content, warning that without clear rules, the next Amazon or YouTube could be throttled before it can get off the ground.
“Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an Internet that is fast, open, and fair,” Rosenworcel said. “With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open Internet principles in federal law.”
Carr says he wants to punish broadcast media and dismantle “censorship cartel.”
Federal Communications Commission member Brendan Carr speaks during the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 24, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Anadolu
Federal Communications Commission member Brendan Carr speaks during the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 24, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Anadolu
President-elect Donald Trump announced last night that he will make Brendan Carr the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Carr, who wrote a chapter about the FCC for the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, is a longtime opponent of net neutrality rules and other regulations imposed on Internet service providers.
Although Carr wants to deregulate telecom companies that the FCC has historically regulated, he wants the FCC to start regulating Big Tech and social media firms. He has also echoed Trump’s longtime complaints about the news media and proposed punishments for broadcast networks.
Trump’s statement on Carr said that “because of his great work, I will now be designating him as permanent Chairman.”
“Commissioner Carr is a warrior for Free Speech, and has fought against the regulatory Lawfare that has stifled Americans’ Freedoms, and held back our Economy,” Trump wrote. “He will end the regulatory onslaught that has been crippling America’s Job Creators and Innovators, and ensure that the FCC delivers for rural America.”
Carr is a sitting FCC commissioner and therefore no Senate approval is needed to confirm the choice. The president can elevate any commissioner to the chair spot.
Carr wants to punish broadcasters
Carr thanked Trump in a post on his X account last night, then made several more posts describing some of the changes he plans to make at the FCC. One of Carr’s posts said the FCC will crack down on broadcast media.
“Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource—our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest. When the transition is complete, the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation,” Carr wrote.
We described Carr’s views on how the FCC should operate in an article on November 7, just after Trump’s election win. We wrote:
A Carr-led FCC could also try to punish news organizations that are perceived to be anti-Trump. Just before the election, Carr alleged that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule” and that the FCC should consider issuing penalties. Despite Carr’s claim, NBC did provide equal time to the Trump campaign.
Previous chairs defended free speech
Previous FCC chairs from both major parties have avoided punishing news organizations because of free speech concerns. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, the current FCC chairwoman, last month criticized Trump’s calls for licenses to be revoked from TV news organizations whose coverage he dislikes.
“While repeated attacks against broadcast stations by the former President may now be familiar, these threats against free speech are serious and should not be ignored,” Rosenworcel said at the time. “As I’ve said before, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”
Former Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, rejected the idea of revoking licenses in 2017 after similar calls from Trump. Pai said that the FCC “under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment” and that “the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”
Carr believes differently. After the Saturday Night Live incident, Carr told Fox News that “all remedies should be on the table,” including “license revocations” for NBC.
We’ve pointed out repeatedly that the FCC doesn’t actually license TV networks such as CBS or NBC. But the FCC could punish affiliates. The FCC’s licensing authority is over broadcast stations, many of which are affiliated with or owned by a big network.
Carr targets “censorship cartel”
Carr wrote last night that “we must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” This seems to be referring to making social media networks change how they moderate content. On November 15, Carr wrote that “Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft & others have played central roles in the censorship cartel,” along with fact-checking groups and ad agencies that “helped enforce one-sided narratives.”
During his first presidential term, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms’ legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable.
Trump and Carr have claimed that such a step is necessary because of anti-conservative bias. In his Project 2025 chapter, Carr wrote that the FCC “should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.”
Carr’s willingness to reinterpret Section 230 is likely a big plus in Trump’s eyes. In 2020, Trump pulled the re-nomination of FCC Republican member Michael O’Rielly after O’Rielly said that “we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way. Like it or not, the First Amendment’s protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making.”
Carr to end FCC diversity policies
Last night, Carr also said he would end the FCC’s embrace of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies. “The FCC’s most recent budget request said that promoting DEI was the agency’s second highest strategic goal. Starting next year, the FCC will end its promotion of DEI,” Carr wrote.
The FCC budget request said the agency “will pursue focused action and investments to eliminate historical, systemic, and structural barriers that perpetuate disadvantaged or underserved individuals and communities.” The Rosenworcel FCC said it aimed to create a diverse staff and to help “underserved individuals and communities” access “digital technologies, media, communication services, and next-generation networks.”
Carr dissented last year in the FCC’s 3-2 decision to impose rules that prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services, describing the rulemaking as “President Biden’s plan to give the administrative state effective control of all Internet services and infrastructure in the US.”
Another major goal for Carr is forcing Big Tech firms to help subsidize broadband network construction. Carr’s Project 2025 chapter said the FCC should “require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share” into “the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund.”
Media advocacy group Free Press said yesterday that “Brendan Carr has been campaigning for this job with promises to do the bidding of Donald Trump and Elon Musk” and “got this job because he will carry out Trump and Musk’s personal vendettas. While styling himself as a free-speech champion, Carr refused to stand up when Trump threatened to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations for daring to fact-check him during the campaign. This alone should be disqualifying.”
Lobby groups representing Internet service providers will be happy to have an FCC chair focused on eliminating broadband regulations. USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter issued a statement saying that “Brendan Carr has been a proven leader and an important partner in our shared goal to connect all Americans. With his deep experience and expertise, Commissioner Carr clearly understands the regulatory challenges and opportunities across the communications landscape.”
Pai, who teamed up with Carr and O’Rielly to eliminate net neutrality rules in 2017, wrote that Carr “was a brilliant advisor and General Counsel and has been a superb Commissioner, and I’m confident he will be a great FCC Chairman.”
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.
Apple’s iMessage service is not a “gatekeeper” prone to unfair business practices and will thus not be required under the Fair Markets Act to open up to messages, files, and video calls from other services, the European Commission announced earlier today.
Apple was one of many companies, including Google, Amazon, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Meta, and Microsoft to have its “gatekeeper” status investigated by the European Union. The iMessage service did meet the definition of a “core platform,” serving at least 45 million EU users monthly and being controlled by a firm with at least 75 billion euros in market capitalization. But after “a thorough assessment of all arguments” during a five-month investigation, the Commission found that iMessage and Microsoft’s Bing search, Edge browser, and ad platform “do not qualify as gatekeeper services.” The unlikelihood of EU demands on iMessage was apparent in early December when Bloomberg reported that the service didn’t have enough sway with business users to demand more regulation.
Had the Commission ruled otherwise, Apple would have had until August to open its service. It would have been interesting to see how the company would have complied, given that it provides end-to-end encryption and registers senders based on information from their registered Apple devices.
Google had pushed the Commission to force Apple into “gatekeeper status,” part of Google’s larger campaign to make Apple treat Android users better when they trade SMS messages with iPhone users. While Apple has agreed to take up RCS, an upgraded form of carrier messaging with typing indicators and better image and video quality, it will not provide encryption for Android-to-iPhone SMS, nor remove the harsh green coloring that particularly resonates with younger users.
Apple is still obligated to comply with the Digital Markets Act’s other implications on its iOS operating system, its App Store, and its Safari browser. The European Union version of iOS 17.4, due in March, will offer “alternative app marketplaces,” or sideloading, along with the tools so that those other app stores can provide updates and other services. Browsers on iOS will also be able to use their own rendering engines rather than providing features only on top of mobile Safari rendering. Microsoft, among other firms, will make similar concessions in certain areas of Europe with Windows 11 and other products.
While it’s unlikely to result in the same kind of action, Brendan Carr, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, said at a conference yesterday that the FCC “has a role to play” in investigating whether Apple’s blocking of the Beeper Mini app violated Part 14 rules regarding accessibility and usability. “I think the FCC should launch an investigation to look at whether Apple’s decision to degrade the Beeper Mini functionality… was a step that violated the FCC’s rules in Part 14,” Carr said at the State of the Net policy conference in Washington, DC.
Beeper Mini launched with the ability for Android users to send fully encrypted iMessage messages to Apple users, based on reverse-engineering of its protocol and registration. Days after its launch, Apple blocked its users and issued a statement saying that it was working to stop exploits and spam. The blocking and workarounds continued until Beeper announced that it was shifting its focus away from iMessage and back to being a multi-service chat app, minus one particular service. Beeper’s experience had previously garnered recognition from Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
Ars has reached out to Apple, Microsoft, and Google for comment and will update this post if we receive responses.
