On Status Of Investigation

In a letter delivered to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr on May 14, a coalition of more than 20 conservative organizations and individuals, spearheaded by Heritage Action for America, formally expressed their support for the removal of federal ownership regulations governing radio and television stations.

The letter marks a significant push in the ongoing debate over the future of media regulation, particularly as legacy broadcast outlets attempt to stay relevant and competitive in a digital era increasingly dominated by major tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple, and Amazon.

An Industry Playing Catch-Up

For decades, the FCC has maintained various ownership caps and cross-ownership restrictions intended to promote diversity of voices, local journalism, and competition in the broadcast space. These rules were born out of a 20th-century media environment in which access to public airwaves was limited and concentrated ownership posed serious threats to media plurality.

But today’s media landscape is virtually unrecognizable compared to the era in which these policies were crafted. The rise of social media platforms, streaming services, and algorithm-driven news distribution has created an imbalance, critics argue—one in which traditional broadcasters are left shackled by outdated regulations while Big Tech platforms remain largely unregulated in their control of digital content and advertising revenue.

The coalition’s letter argues that existing ownership limits now stifle investment, reduce innovation, and disadvantage local broadcasters at a time when they are already struggling to keep pace with rapidly evolving consumer behavior and tech-driven competition. Specifically, the groups are urging the FCC to repeal three core restrictions:

• The local TV duopoly rules, which limit the number of TV stations a company can own in a given market;

• The local radio ownership caps, which prevent consolidation of radio stations within certain geographic areas; and

• The 39% national television ownership cap, which restricts a single company from reaching more than 39% of U.S. television households.

“We urge the Commission to swiftly repeal these regulations,” the letter states, “particularly the local TV duopoly rules, the local radio ownership caps, and the 39% national television cap. These outdated rules no longer serve the public interest and are harming the long-term sustainability of local broadcast media.”

A Conservative Coalition with Broad Implications

Though spearheaded by Heritage Action for America—a conservative advocacy group aligned with the Heritage Foundation—the letter was co-signed by a wide array of conservative and free-market voices, including think tanks, media policy advocates, and former government officials. Their central message: regulatory reform is long overdue, and the FCC has an opportunity to level the playing field for traditional broadcasters in a media environment now dominated by digital tech behemoths.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the primary industry group representing U.S. radio and television stations, praised the letter’s message and emphasized its alignment with the organization’s top regulatory priority: eliminating outdated ownership limits.

“Americans of all political persuasions concur that onerous, capricious regulations are restricting local TV and radio stations’ capacity to compete with Big Tech in the contemporary media landscape,” said Curtis LeGeyt, president and CEO of the NAB. “We appreciate the broad support for updating these antiquated broadcast ownership regulations and reaffirming the FCC’s call to level the playing field so local broadcasters can offer the most reliable news, live sports, and entertainment to all viewers and listeners.”

Brendan Carr and the Deregulation Agenda

Commissioner Brendan Carr, appointed by former President Donald Trump and considered one of the FCC’s most outspoken conservative voices, has been increasingly vocal in his support for deregulating the media space. In recent speeches, op-eds, and interviews, Carr has repeatedly made the case that broadcast media is being hamstrung by legacy rules while digital platforms face few of the same constraints.

Carr has pointed to the growing market power of companies like YouTube (owned by Google), Facebook (owned by Meta), and TikTok as evidence that the playing field has shifted dramatically—and that regulatory frameworks must evolve accordingly. For Carr, removing ownership limits is part of a broader agenda to modernize FCC rules across the board and reduce regulatory burdens that he believes hinder innovation and economic growth.

His position has found receptive ears within the broader conservative movement, which has increasingly framed tech regulation as a free speech issue, alleging that platforms censor viewpoints while extracting billions from ad markets that once supported local journalism.

While Carr has not yet introduced formal action to repeal ownership limits, the growing support from outside groups may lay the groundwork for a regulatory shift should political conditions allow.

A Legacy of Regulation Under Pressure

Historically, broadcast ownership rules have been guided by the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” standard established by the Communications Act of 1934 and refined over decades through legislation and FCC policy. The idea was to prevent monopolization, encourage diversity of viewpoints, and ensure localism in media coverage.

These rules played a central role in shaping the American media ecosystem for much of the 20th century, but as consolidation has increased across industries, even critics of deregulation acknowledge that the old framework is under strain.

Supporters of deregulation argue that competition now comes from outside the broadcast sector and that restricting station ownership doesn’t prevent monopolies—it simply weakens broadcasters’ ability to survive.

Opponents, however, argue that removing these protections would further consolidate media ownership in the hands of a few powerful corporations, reducing diversity in local news coverage and creating echo chambers of content. They also warn that deregulation could lead to more newsroom layoffs, less community-focused programming, and fewer independent voices.

What Comes Next?

While the letter may not result in immediate policy changes, it adds significant momentum to the deregulatory push and could influence upcoming FCC debates. With a divided Commission—currently split between Democratic and Republican appointees—the future of media ownership regulation will likely depend on broader political shifts and legal review.

If a conservative majority emerges in future FCC leadership, either through elections or appointments, the coalition’s goals could become reality. In the meantime, industry stakeholders, tech companies, and policymakers will continue to wrestle with the central question: How do we ensure fairness and competition in a media environment that has already evolved beyond the rules meant to govern it?

As the debate unfolds, one thing remains clear: the future of American broadcasting—and the policies that govern it—will depend not only on market forces but on how regulators choose to respond to the rapid rise of Big Tech and the evolving needs of local journalism.