Major broadcasters push FCC to scrap local TV ownership limits

The broadcast industry presented a united front in reply comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission in early January, arguing that decades-old limits on local television station ownership no longer serve the public interest in an era dominated by streaming platforms and digital media.

The comments, part of the FCC’s 2022 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, focus on the local television ownership rule – commonly called the “duopoly rule” –which generally limits a single entity to owning two stations in the same market.

Major station groups, including Sinclair, Nexstar, E.W. Scripps Company, Fox Corporation and Cox Media Group, all called for the elimination of the restriction.

“The video marketplace is highly fragmented,” wrote Sinclair in its filing. “Viewers no longer rely on a small number of broadcast stations for entertainment and informational programming. Viewers have thousands of content choices across countless platforms and devices.”

The National Association of Broadcasters submitted a filing arguing that maintaining the rule harms broadcasters’ ability to compete with unregulated platforms like YouTube, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. NAB pointed to data showing broadcast television’s share of total viewing declined from 53% in 2014 to 32% in 2025, while streaming services grew from 19% to 50% in the same period.

FCC commissioners face sharp questioning on broadcast ownership, First Amendment concerns

Streaming platforms reshape competitive landscape

The key argument for the deregulation of local broadcast stations is competition from streaming providers, with multiple citing it along with economic analyses showing fundamental shifts in the video marketplace 

Fox Corporation attached a report from economist Lisa M. George that documented how streaming platforms now compete directly with broadcast networks for sports rights, premium content and advertising dollars.

“Streaming platforms have become direct bidders alongside broadcast and cable networks for the premium programs that historically anchored traditional broadcast schedules,” the report stated.

Advertisement

Nexstar noted that digital video advertising surpassed linear television advertising in the United States for the first time in 2024, despite that year including a national election and Olympic Games that historically concentrated advertising on broadcast platforms.

The E.W. Scripps Company provided specific examples of how common ownership of multiple stations in markets has enabled increased local service rather than reduced it. Since acquiring KUPX in Salt Lake City in 2021, Scripps added 25 hours per week of local news to a station that previously aired none. Similar increases occurred in Las Vegas, Denver and Detroit markets.

“By gaining greater, although still significantly and artificially limited, scale by combining stations in certain markets, Scripps has been able to increase the local service delivered by its stations,” the company wrote.

Pay-TV providers oppose changes

Multichannel video programming distributors, including DirecTV, NCTA and the American Television Alliance, filed comments opposing the elimination of ownership limits, arguing that consolidation would lead to higher retransmission consent fees.

“The merged entity’s expanded portfolio would allow it to exercise increased leverage in retransmission consent negotiations,” DirecTV argued, proposing that the FCC adopt a presumption that certain transactions are anticompetitive based on market concentration measures.

Broadcasters disputed this argument.

NAB cited data from S&P Global, referenced in Gray Media’s initial comments, showing broadcast retransmission consent fees represented only 27% of total programming fees paid by MVPDs in 2025, with the remaining 73% paid to cable networks.

NAB also cited broadcaster comments noting that retransmission consent fees have been declining since 2023 and are predicted to continue declining through at least 2030, according to Kagan data.

“Retransmission consent is often scapegoated for price increases, but a closer look at the data reveals that the vast majority of the programming fees that MVPDs pay are to national cable networks—many of which are vertically integrated with MVPDs or large media conglomerates,” Gray wrote.

Sinclair argued that increases in retransmission consent fees primarily reflect rising programming costs, particularly network affiliation fees, rather than broadcaster market power.

“The network-affiliate relationship has changed dramatically in recent years. Networks are charging affiliates higher and higher affiliation fees and forcing affiliates to pay a disproportionate share of MVPD retransmission consent revenue back to the networks,” Sinclair wrote.

Legal framework drives debate

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Zimmer Radio v. FCC last summer significantly shaped the comments. That ruling found the FCC lacks authority under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act to tighten ownership rules during its quadrennial reviews.

Advertisement

“The Eighth Circuit concluded that the Commission lacked authority under Section 202(h) to tighten the local TV rule (or, by extension, any other ownership rule reviewed under Section 202(h)),” NAB wrote, arguing this establishes a deregulatory framework for the review.

Some commenters attempted to preserve the Third Circuit’s different interpretation from earlier Prometheus cases, but broadcasters argued the Eighth Circuit’s analysis was more thorough and correctly applied post-Loper Bright statutory interpretation principles.

Trinity Broadcasting Network, a smaller broadcaster, filed comments supporting the elimination of the rule.

“Modern video distribution is scale-driven. Streaming platforms and large technology companies operate unimpeded across the entire country, with centralized infrastructure and cost distribution,” TBN wrote.

Dual network rule remains contentious

While broadcasters generally agreed on eliminating the local ownership limit, they split on the dual network rule, which prohibits common ownership of two of the four major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox).

Fox Corporation called for eliminating the dual network rule, arguing it prevents networks from achieving the necessary scale to compete with streaming platforms. The company submitted Dr. George’s economic analysis showing broadcast and streaming platforms now compete in a unified market for programming and advertising.

“The broader attention-market framing suggested by FTC v. Meta would strengthen this conclusion,” the Fox filing stated, referencing a recent antitrust case involving social media platforms.

However, the ABC, CBS, FBC and NBC Television Affiliates Associations – representing more than 700 local stations – strongly supported retaining the dual network rule. The affiliates argued the rule protects the balance between networks and local stations.

“The Dual Network Rule is a special-purpose rule designed to maintain balance between the national Big Four Networks and their local Affiliates,” the affiliates associations wrote. “Getting rid of the Dual Network Rule would only exacerbate” the problem of networks taking increasing control of affiliate finances and programming.

Gray Media and other station groups echoed this position, arguing that while local ownership limits should be eliminated, the dual network rule serves a different purpose tied to the ongoing FCC proceeding examining network-affiliate relationships.

Advertisement

CMG Media Corporation, which operates television and radio stations in multiple markets, supported eliminating the local TV ownership rule while retaining the dual network rule.

“Elimination of the dual network rule would do nothing to support local broadcasting,” CMG wrote. “Rather, elimination of the dual network rule would perpetuate the problem many commenters discuss—the capture of television programming by coastal, national media conglomerates.”

Why it matters for local television

This proceeding represents a battle for the future of local broadcasters. The data shows a business where viewership is declining, ad revenue is shifting to digital and the cost of programming continues to rise. 

Meanwhile, Netflix, YouTube and Amazon operate without the ownership restrictions, content obligations or regulatory fees that broadcasters face.

If local broadcast is deregulated, the real winners will be the large broadcast groups who already see consolidation on the horizon. Sinclair noted last year that they see a future with only two local station groups.

The losers would likely be MVPDs, which would face potentially stronger negotiating counterparts for retransmission consent, though broadcasters make a compelling case that fee increases primarily reflect rising programming costs rather than market power. 

But the more fundamental question is whether maintaining these restrictions serves viewers.

If ownership limits prevent broadcasters from competing effectively, the likely outcome is more stations signing off, more news deserts and less free over-the-air programming, outcomes that hurt rural and lower-income communities most.

The FCC faces a choice between preserving a regulatory structure designed for a three-network world that disappeared decades ago, or adapting rules to a marketplace where TikTok, YouTube and streaming services dominate video consumption.