Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

October 9, 2018 – June 1, 2021 R45338

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
June 1, 2021
Media Ownership Rules
Dana A. Scherer
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) aims, with its broadcast media ownership
Specialist in
rules, to promote localism and competition by restricting the number of media outlets that a
Telecommunications
single entity may own or control within a geographic market and, in the case of broadcast
Policy
television stations, nationwide. In addition, the FCC seeks to encourage diversity, including (1)

the diversity of viewpoints, as reflected in the availability of media content offering a variety of
perspectives; (2) diversity of programming, as indicated by a variety of formats and content; (3)

outlet diversity, to ensure the presence of multiple independently owned media outlets within a
geographic market; and (4) minority and female ownership of broadcast media outlets.
In November 2017, acting in response to petitions from broadcast station licensees, the FCC repealed or relaxed several local
media ownership rules. The repealed rules limited common ownership of broadcast television and radio stations within the
same market and of television stations and newspapers within the same market. The FCC also relaxed rules limiting common
ownership of two top-four television stations (generally, ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC stations) within the same market. In
August 2018, the FCC issued rules governing a new “incubator” program designed to enhance ownership diversity. Parties,
including the Prometheus Radio Project, appealed these orders. In April 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s
changes to its media ownership rules.
Two FCC media ownership rules have proven particularly controversial: its national cap on the number of television
households a single company can reach via television stations and its method for measuring that reach. Its national media
ownership rule prohibits any entity from owning commercial television stations that reach more than 39% of U.S. television
households nationwide. Its “UHF discount” rule discounts by half the reach, by percentage of households, of a station
broadcasting in the Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) band when applying the national media ownership rule. In December 2017,
the commission opened a rulemaking proceeding seeking comments about whether it should modify or repeal the two rules.
If the FCC retains the UHF discount, even if it maintains the 39% cap, a single entity could potentially reach 78% of U.S.
television households through its ownership of broadcast television stations. As of May 2021, this rulemaking proceeding
remains open.
An important issue with respect to the national ownership cap, which the FCC has not addressed in a rulemaking, is how the
agency treats a situation in which a broadcaster manages, operates, sells advertising for, and/or finances a television station
owned by another company. In some cases, the FCC has articulated its policy on an ad hoc basis in the context of merger
reviews, while in other instances it has effectively consented to such arrangements through its silence. Thus, a single entity
could comply with the national ownership cap while still influencing broadcast television stations it does not own, reaching
more viewers than permitted under the cap. In December 2020, Nexstar Media Group, the country’s largest local television
company with 198 full-power stations (including partner stations) in 116 television markets , entered into financial and
operating relationships with a third-party licensee of a station in the New York television market with the approval of the
FCC’s Media Bureau. Counting the UHF discount, these relationships enable Nexstar to extend its reach beyond the 39%
cap—to 44% of U.S. television households. A formal rulemaking by the commissioners could clarify how the agency would
evaluate such relationships in judging compliance with the national ownership cap.
These regulatory changes are occurring against the background of changes in media consumption patterns. While local
broadcast television news remains the most popular source of local news, the percentage of adults citing websites and social
media as news sources continues to grow. In contrast to broadcast television and radio stations, these media are not regulated
by the FCC. The extent to which station owners can respond to these market changes by consolidation depends upon the
FCC’s media ownership and attribution rules.
Congressional Research Service

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Why Regulate Media Ownership?
From the earliest days of commercial radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, have encouraged diversity in broadcasting.1
The FCC’s policies seek to encourage four distinct types of diversity2 in local broadcast media:
 diversity of viewpoints, as reflected in the availability of media content reflecting
a variety of perspectives;
 diversity of programming, as indicated by a variety of formats and content,
including programming aimed at various minority and ethnic groups;
 outlet diversity, to ensure the presence of multiple independently owned media
outlets within a geographic market; and
 minority and female ownership of broadcast media outlets.3
In addition to promoting diversity, the FCC aims, with its broadcast media ownership rules,4 to
promote localism and competition by restricting the number of media outlets that a single entity
may own or control within a geographic market and, in the case of broadcast television stations,
nationwide.5 Localism addresses whether broadcast stations are responsive to the needs and
interests of their communities. In evaluating the extent of competition, the FCC considers
whether stations have adequate commercial incentives to invest in diverse news and public affairs
programming tailored to serve viewers within their communities.6
Quadrennial Reviews: Local Media Ownership
Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) directs the FCC to review
its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they are “necessary in the public
interest as a result of competition,” and to “repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no

1 Johnson-Kennedy Radio Corp. (WJKS), Docket No. 1156, affirmed sub nom F.R.C. v. Nelson Bros. Co., 289 U.S.
266, 270-271 (1933); United States Broadcasting Corp., 2 FCC 208, 233 (1935). Louis Caldwell, “ Legal Restrictions
on the Contents of Broadcast Programs,” Air Law Review, vol. 9, no. 3 (July 1938), pp. 229, 246-248.
2 A fifth type, source diversity (the availability of media content from a variety of content producers), has been the
focus of merger proceedings, but in 2002 the FCC determined that this type of diversity was not relevant to its media
ownership rules. Federal Communications Commissio n, “ Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and
Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the T elecommunications Act of 1996; Cross-Ownership of Broadcast
Stations and Newspapers; Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local
Markets; Definition of Radio Markets; Definition of Radio Markets for Areas Not Located in an Arbitron Survey
Area,” 18 FCC Record 13620, 13633, July 2, 2003 (2002 Biennial Review).
3 T he FCC first began to encourage minority ownership of broadcast stations in 1978, in response to an initiative by
President Jimmy Carter. Federal Communications Commission, “Statement of Policy on Minority Ownership of
Broadcasting Facilities, FCC 78-322,” Public Notice, May 25, 1978,
ftp://ftp.fcc.gov/pub/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/78 -322.pdf; Jimmy Carter,
“T elecommunications Minority Assistance Program Announcement of Administration Program,” January 31, 1978,
online by Gerhard Peters and John T . Woolley, The Am erican Presidency Project, at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
ws/?pid=29917.
4 47 C.F.R. §73.3555.
5 2002 Biennial Review, pp. 13621, 13627, 13818.
6 Federal Communications Commission, “2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory
Review, Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Rules and Policies Concerning the
Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements in Local T elevision Markets, Second Report and Order, FCC 16 -107,” 31 FCC
Record, 9864, 9873, August 25, 2016 (2014 Quadrennial Review 2 nd R&O).
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 24 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 25 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

longer in the public interest.”7 Section 257(b) of the act directs the FCC to promote policies
favoring, among other things, the diversity of media voices and vigorous economic competition.8
For decades, the FCC’s media ownership rules limited common ownership of broadcast radio
stations, broadcast television stations, and daily newspapers within the same local market.
In 2017, as described in “Ownership Rules Subject to Quadrennial Review,” the FCC repealed
two of these rules, thereby permitting common ownership of newspapers, radio stations, and
television stations within the same local television market.9 In addition, the FCC relaxed its rule
limiting common ownership of television stations within the same market, as described in “Local
Attribution Rules,” as wel its standards of attributing television station “ownership.” In April
2021, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s decisions.10
Links with Ownership Diversity
In 1999, the FCC relaxed several of its media ownership rules.11 Acknowledging that various
parties expressed concern that greater consolidation of broadcast ownership could make it more
difficult for new licensees to enter the broadcasting industry, the FCC stated that (1) it was
conducting studies that would enable it to address the requirement that its rules withstand the U.S.
Supreme Court’s scrutiny of any rules selectively applied to organizations based on the race or
gender of their owners, and (2) upon completion of the studies, it would examine steps it could
take to expand opportunities for minorities and women to enter the broadcast industry.12
In addition, the FCC adopted a requirement that, before obtaining a waiver from the FCC’s rule
limiting common local ownership of television stations, a licensee of a “failed/failing” station
(described in Table 1) must notify the public that the station is for sale and demonstrate to the
agency that the licensee’s attempt to secure an out-of-market buyer was unsuccessful. The
commission reiterated that the FCC “has made a number of efforts separate from this proceeding
to address minority and female ownership issues, and we hope to take further steps in this area.”13
In 2002, the FCC issued an order repealing and/or further relaxing several media ownership rules,
including the failed station solicitation rule, arguing that “the efficiencies associated with
operation of two same-market stations, absent unusual circumstances, wil always result in the
buyer being the owner of another station in that market.”14 The FCC deferred consideration of

7 §202(h), 257 (47 U.S.C. §303 note).
8 §202(h), 257 (47 U.S.C. §257(b)).
9 Federal Communications Commission, “Matter of 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the
Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the
T elecommunications Act of 1996, 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast
Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the T elecommunications Act of 1996,
Promoting Diversification of Ownership In the Broadcasting Services, Rules and Policies Concerning Attribution of
Joint Sales Agreements in Local T elevision Markets, FCC 16 -107, Order on Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Report and Order,” 32 FCC Record 9802, November 20, 2017 (2017 Quadrennial Review Order on
Recon and NPRM).
10 FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150 (2021).
11 Federal Communications Commission, “Review of the Commission’s Regulations Governing T elevision
Broadcasting, T elevision Satellite Stations Review of Policy and Rules, Report and Order, FCC 99-209,” 14 FCC
Record 12903, August 6, 1999 (1999 Media Ownership R&O).
12 1999 Media Ownership R&O, p. 12910. Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
13 1999 Media Ownership R&O, p. 12937.
14 Federal Communications Commission, “2002 Quadrennial Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
FCC 03-127,” 18 FCC Record 13620, 13708, July 2, 2003 (2002 Quadrennial R&O and NPRM).
Congressional Research Service

2

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

other proposals to advance minority and female ownership, stating that it would address them in a
future rulemaking.15
For 15 years, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit repeatedly vacated and remanded
the FCC’s proposed changes to media ownership rules, stating that the agency’s consideration of
how the changes could affect minority and female ownership of broadcast stations was
inadequate and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).16 For example, in 2019,
the Third Circuit stated, “On remand the Commission must ascertain on record evidence the
likely effect of any rule changes it proposes .. on ownership by women and minorities, whether
through new empirical research or an in-depth theoretical analysis.”17
Diversity Initiatives: Eligible Entities and Incubator Program
As part of its quadrennial media ownership review, in 2016 the FCC adopted rules designed to
increase broadcast ownership diversity in a way consistent with the Third Circuit’s directives.18
Rather than specifical y target minorities and females, the FCC created a category of “eligible
entities” that are subject to less restrictive media ownership rules than are other entities.19
Furthermore, as part of its 2017 media ownership order, the FCC established a new incubator
program that waives its broadcast radio ownership rules for established radio broadcasters that
“incubate” new entrants and launched a new rulemaking proceeding seeking comment on how to
implement the program.20 The agency issued rules governing the incubator program in August
2018.
U.S. Supreme Court 2021 Review
In April 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the FCC’s media
ownership rule changes, its “eligible entity” definition, and its incubator program.21 The Supreme
Court held that the agency’s analysis did not violate the APA because it was “reasonable” and
“reasonably explained.”22 It overturned the Third Circuit’s judgment that the FCC violated the
APA by relying on faulty or incomplete data in implementing its ownership rule changes, stating:
To be sure, in assessing the effects on minority and female ownership, the FCC did not
have perfect empirical or statistical data. Far from it. But that is not unusual in day-to-day
agency decisionmaking within the Executive Branch. The [APA] imposes no general
obligation on agencies to conduct or commission their own empirical or statistical
studies.… And nothing in the Telecommunications Act (or any other statute) requires the

15 Ibid. pp. 13636-13637.
16 Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004). (Prometheus I) Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC,
652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011) (Prometheus II). Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (Prometheus III), 824 F.3d 33, 37 (3d
Cir. 2016). Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 939 F.3d 567, 589 (3d Cir. 2019) (Prometheus IV).
17 Prometheus IV, p. 587.
18 Federal Communications Commission, “2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory
Review, Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, Rules and Policies Conce rning the
Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements in Local T elevision Markets, Second Report and Order, FCC 16 -107,” 31 FCC
Record, 9864, 9873, August 25, 2016 (2014 Quadrennial Review 2 nd R&O and 2016 Diversity Order).
19 As directed by the T hird Circuit in Prometheus II, the FCC discussed additional proposals set forth by commenters in
the 2010 Diversity proceeding. T he commission declined to adopt them.
20 2017 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM.
21 FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project , 141 S. Ct. 1150, 1160 n.4 (2021).
22 Ibid., p. 1160.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 34 link to page 9 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

FCC to conduct its own empirical or statistical studies before exercising its discretion
under Section 202(h).23
National Media Ownership: Television Stations
Section 629 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) amended the
Telecommunications Act of 199624 and directed the FCC to adopt rules that would cap the reach
of a single company’s television stations at 39% of U.S. television households.25 In addition,
Congress exempted this national ownership cap from the FCC’s required review of its media
ownership rules every four years. In December 2017, the FCC initiated a rulemaking proceeding
in which it proposed to eliminate or modify that national audience reach cap.26 In the proceeding,
the FCC sought comments on whether the agency has the authority to modify or eliminate the
national cap, and noted that previously the agency had rejected arguments that Congress
precluded the FCC from making any adjustment. For more information about the history of the
national ownership rule, see Table A-1.
News Consumption Trends
In 1996, as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104), Congress directed the
FCC to regularly review and reassess its media ownership rules in order, as the U.S. Supreme
Court stated, to “keep pace with industry developments and to regularly reassess how its rules
function in the marketplace.27
Since then, technological, financial, and regulatory developments have transformed the media
landscape. In 1996, according to surveys conducted by Pew Research Center, 59% of respondents
stated that they “got news yesterday” from television—including national broadcast and cable
television networks as wel as local television stations. Pew began to include online sources in its
survey in 2004,28 when 24% of respondents stated that they “got news yesterday” from these
sources.29
In 2016, Pew changed the wording of its survey question to ask specifical y about consumption of
local television news and news from social media, as wel as from other sources.30 As Figure 1
indicates, as of 2018, local TV news remained the news source most cited by survey participants,
while newspapers were the least cited.

23 Ibid., 1160 (internal citations omitted). For more information about the Administrative Procedure Act, see CRS Legal
Sidebar LSB10558, Judicial Review Under the Adm inistrative Procedure Act (APA), by Jonathan M. Gaffney, and
CRS In Focus IF10003, An Overview of Federal Regulations and the Rulem aking Process, by Maeve P. Carey.
24 T elecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, §202(c) and (h). {47 U.S.C. §303 note.]
25 T he FCC relies on estimates of the number of television households by the Nielsen Company.
26 Federal Communications Commission, “Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission’s Rules, National
T elevision Multiple Ownership Rule, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17 -169,” 32 FCC Record 10785,
December 18, 2017.
27 FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150, 1156 (2021); P.L. 104 -104 §202(h), (47 U.S.C.§303 note).
28 In this survey, “online” sources include online content from television stations or networks, online newspapers, and
online content from radio stations or networks.
29 Pew Research Center, “U.S. Politics and Policy: 2012 Media Consumption Survey: Download Dataset,” at
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/dataset/2012-media-consumption-survey/.
30 Pew Research Center, “Methods: American T rends Panel Wave 37: Download Dataset,” at
https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/dataset/american-trends-panel-wave-37/.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Figure 1. News Consumption: 2016-2018
Percentage of Respondents Who “Often” Got News from Each Media Platform

Source: Pew Research Center, “Methods: American Trends Panel Wave 37: Download Dataset,” at
https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/dataset/american-trends-panel-wave-37/.
Notes: Examples of social media sites presented to respondents included Facebook and Twitter.
In 2020, following a year-long study in which Pew reassessed its methodology for measuring
“news consumption in a digital era,”31 it further modified the questions it asked in its audience
survey. Its 2020 survey distinguished between “talk radio” and “public radio” programming on
broadcast radio stations.
As Figure 2 il ustrates, in 2020 local television remained the principal medium from which
respondents “often” got news, with 40% of respondents citing it. The survey results may have
been affected by the widespread economic and social impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic in 2020, which led to an increase in television viewing as people searched
for news about it,32 and a further decline in the number of newspapers, as advertisers cut back
spending.33

31 Michael Barthell, Amy Mitchell, and Dorene Asare-Mafo, et al., Measuring News Consumption in a Digital Era,
Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, December 2020, at https://www.journalism.org/2020/12/08/measuring-news-
consumption-in-a-digital-era/. T he introduction states, “ This report is the culmination of a yearlong study into
Americans’ news consumption habits in an era of rapidly evolving media technology and a look at how researchers can
measure those news habits.” Ibid., p. 3. (Pew 2020 News Measurement Study.)
32 Lillian Rizzo, “Local T V Sees Spike in Viewers, Drop in Ads in Coronavirus Crisis,” Wall Street Journal, April 3,
2020, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/local-tv-sees-spike-in-viewers-drop-in-ads-in-coronavirus-crisis-11585915203
(quoting Kyle Evans, a media analyst at Stephens Inc., a financial services firm).
33 Erika Bolstad, “COVID-19 is Crushing Newspapers, Worsening Hunger for Accurate Information,” Pew Charitable
T rusts, September 8, 2020, at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/09/08/covid-19-
is-crushing-newspapers-worsening-hunger-for-accurate-information.
Congressional Research Service

5

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Figure 2. News Consumption by Medium: 2020
Percentage of Respondents Who “Often” Get News from Each Media Platform

Source: Pew Research Center, “Journalism and Media: Datasets: American Trends Panel Wave 68,” at
https://www.journalism.org/?post_type=dataset. Pew 2020 News Measurement Study.
Notes: Results based on self-reported responses to survey questions. Those who stated they get news from a
given source “often” general y said they got news that way five to seven days per week.
Collectively, these survey trends raise questions as to whether common ownership of multiple
media outlets in the same market might limit diversity of viewpoints as much today as it might
have 25 years ago.
Industry Consolidation Trends
As traditional broadcast television stations, radio stations, and newspapers face competition for
consumers’ attention and advertising revenue, al three industries have consolidated. In the
broadcast industry, consolidation has been facilitated by a changed economic and regulatory
environment following enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Broadcast Radio
Prior to 1996, FCC rules stipulated that an entity could general y own no more than 40 radio
stations (20 AM stations and 20 FM stations) nationwide.34 The Telecommunications Act of 1996
eliminated the FCC’s restrictions on national radio station ownership.35 In addition, the act
increased the FCC’s prior limits on the number of stations a single entity could own within a local
market.36 With the new law in place, the number of stations sold nearly doubled from 1995 to
1996.37

34 Federal Communications Commission, “Implementations of Sections 202(a) and 202(b)(1) of the
T elecommunications Act of 1996, Broadcast Radio Ownership, Order, FCC 96 -90,” 11 FCC Record 12368, March 8,
1996. (1996 FCC Radio Ownership Implementation).
35 T elecommunications Act of 1996, §202(a).
36 T elecommunications Act of 1996, §201(b)(1); 1996 FCC Radio Ownership Implementation, p 12369.
37 Kagan Research, LLC, Radio Financial Databook, 7th Edition, Monterey, CA, June 2006, p. 57.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

The annual value of radio station transactions peaked in 1999 at $27.8 bil ion (Figure 3). More
recently, the value of individual broadcast radio transactions has declined, reflecting the relatively
lower value of transactions involving smal er-market stations. In 2020, the average transaction
size was $1.2 mil ion.38
Figure 3. Broadcast Radio Industry Consolidation: 1990-2020
Value of Broadcast Radio Transactions, by Year
(in bil ions of constant FY2020 dol ars)

Source: CRS analysis of data from S&P Global Marketplace. Bureau of Economic Statistics, Table 1.1.9. Implicit
Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product.
Notes: Figures adjusted for inflation in 2020 dol ars.
Broadcast Television
Consolidation in the broadcast television industry reflects the changing regulatory and financial
landscape as wel strategic factors. In 1995, the year prior to enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Walt Disney Company agreed to purchase the ABC
television network and several broadcast stations from Capital Cities/ABC Inc.,39 and
Westinghouse Electric Corporation agreed to purchase CBS Inc., which owned the CBS
television network and several stations.40 The 1996 act’s relaxation of the FCC’s national
television ownership rules enabled Westinghouse to keep al of the stations it had acquired from
CBS.41

38 Volker Moerbitz, “Databook: Radio Station Deals,” S&P Global Market Intelligence, April 23, 2021.
39 Skip Wollenberg, “Disney Completes $19 Billion Buyout of Cap Cities/ABC,” Associated Press, February 6, 1996 at
https://apnews.com/article/936213bf16e84410ffbe97e2a78fc471.
40 Bloomberg Business News, “Purchase of CBS Completed Westinghouse is Now Biggest Broadcasters with $5.4
Billion Deal,” Baltimore Sun, November 25, 1995, at https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-11-25-
1995329069-story.html.
41 Among other conditions, the FCC required Westinghouse to divest television stations within 12 months of the
agency’s approval of the transaction, in order to comply with the agency’s limits on nationwide television station
ownership at that time. Federal Communications Commission, “Application for Stockholders of CBS Inc. (transferor)
and Westinghouse Electric Corporation (transferee) for T ransfer of Control of CBS, Inc., Licensee of WCBS-T V, New
York, New York, et. al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 95 -469,” 11 FCC Record 3733, 3775-3776, November
22, 1995. Westinghouse changed its name to CBS Corporation in 1997. “Westinghouse RIP,” The Economist,
November 27, 1997 at https://www.economist.com/business/1997/11/27/westinghouse-rip.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 12 link to page 24

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Figure 4. Broadcast Television Industry Consolidation: 1990-2020
Value of Broadcast Television Transactions, by Year
(in bil ions of constant FY2020 dol ars )

Source: CRS analysis of data from S&P Global Marketplace. Bureau of Economic Statistics, Table 1.1.9. Implicit
Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product.
Notes: Figures adjusted for in inflation in 2020 dol ars.
As Figure 4 indicates, 1999 was a high point for sales of broadcast television stations, with
stations worth $7.4 bil ion changing hands. That year, the FCC’s relaxation of its local television
ownership rules, described in “Local Television Ownership Rule (Television Duopoly Rule),”
enabled Viacom Inc. to purchase CBS Corporation.42
From October 2005 through 2007, private equity firms, attracted by the perceived steady cash
flows of broadcast television stations, bought some of the nation’s largest television broadcasters,
including Clear Channel, Univision, Tribune, ION, and the New York Times TV group.43
According to the research firm SNLKagan, “Nearly al broadcast public ﬁnancing in 2006
occurred via debt, as broadcasters accessed the credit markets to reduce interest-rate costs, close
deals and/or retire higher-cost public debt.”44 The financial meltdown of 2008 caused the market
for television transactions to come to an almost complete standstil , hitting the lowest number in
recorded history ($174.7 mil ion) in 2010.45 The industry underwent another wave of
consolidation in 2013 and 2014 due in part to the consummation of deals left uncompleted in the
wake of the 2008 financial crisis.46
In recent years, a few broadcast station owners increased their national reach by acquiring
stations from counterparts exiting the industry. The increase in national and local scale enables
broadcast television groups to increase their bargaining power when negotiating with broadcast
networks for programming, with cable and satel ite operators for rights to retransmit their

42 Federal Communications Commission, “Application of Shareholders of CBS Corporation (transferor) and Viacom,
Inc. (transferee) for T ransfer of Control of CBS Corporation and Certain Subsidiaries, Licensees of KCBS-T V, Los
Angeles, CA, et. al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00 -155,” 15 FCC Record 8230, 8236-8237, May 3, 2000.
43 SNLKagan, TV Station Deals and Finance Databook, 10th Edition, Charlottesville Virginia, May 2007, p. 169.
44 Ibid., p. 170.
45 SNLKagan, TV Station Deals Databook, 2014 Edition, Charlottesville Virginia, September 2014, p. 16.
46 SNLKagan, TV Station Deals Databook, 2017 Edition, Charlottesville Virginia, April 2017, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 15 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

stations’ signals, and with advertisers seeking to reach a large portion of U.S. television viewers.47
As described in “Local Attribution Rules,” the FCC’s policies regarding whether or not to
attribute local stations that share financing, assets, and personnel for the purpose of enforcing its
media ownership rules also affect broadcast consolidation.
Application of Local Ownership Rules
Two characteristics of broadcast television and broadcast radio stations determine whether or not
the media ownership rules described in later sections of this report are triggered: (1) the
geographic range (or contours) of their signals, and (2) the limits of their media markets as
determined by the Nielsen Company, a market research firm.
Television Stations
The FCC uses Designated Market Areas (DMAs) to determine the geographic regions that apply
to the duopoly rule, and uses broadcast television signals to determine when combinations within
DMAs trigger the rules.
Television Signal Contours
Following the transition of broadcast stations from analog to digital signals in 2009, the FCC
modified the media ownership rules to reflect two digital television service contours:48
1. The digital “principal community contour” (digital PCC). This contour specifies
the signal strength required to provide television service to a station’s community
of license. The FCC sought, when defining the digital PCC, to provide television
stations with flexibility in siting and building their facilities while stil preventing
stations from straying too far from their respective communities of license.49
2. The digital “noise limited service contour” (digital NLSC). The FCC designed
this contour to define a geographic area in which at least 50% of residents can
receive the signal a majority of the time.50 The FCC wanted to ensure that after
the digital transition, broadcasters would be able to reach the same audiences
they served previously with analog transmissions.
Television Markets
The FCC uses DMAs created by the Nielsen Company to define local television markets. Nielsen
has constructed 210 DMAs by assigning each county in the United States to a specific DMA,

47 Cynthia Littleton, “Big Station Groups Bulk Up with Streaming Options, National Newscasts,” Variety, October 7,
2020, at https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/nexstar-sinclair-ew-scripps-streaming-newcasts-1234795342/.
48 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9876-9877 (for local television ownership rule); pp. 9944-872 (for
radio/television cross-ownership rule); p. 9931 (for newspaper/broadcast television cross-ownership rule).
49 Federal Communications Commission, “Advanced T elevision Systems and their Impact on the Existing T elevision
Broadcast Service,” 25 FCC Record 14588, 14634-14635, April 21, 1997 (1997 Sixth R&O). Federal Communications
Commission, “2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and
Other Rules Pursuant to Section 202 of the T elecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 10 -92,” 25 FCC
Record 6086, 6117, n. 150, May 25, 2010 (2010 Quadrennial NOI).
50 1997 Sixth R&O, pp. 14605-14607.
Congressional Research Service

9

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

based on the predominance of viewing of broadcast television stations licensed to operate in a
given metropolitan statistical area, defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).51
Radio Stations
Radio Signal Contours
FM Primary Service Area
The 1 mil ivolt-per-meter (1 mv/m) contour for FM radio represents a signal that wil result in
satisfactory service to at least 70% of the locations on the outer rim of the contour at least 90% of
the time.52
AM Primary Service Area
In its rules for AM radio stations, the FCC delineates three types of service areas: (1) primary, (2)
secondary, and (3) intermittent. Some classes of radio stations render service to two or more
areas, while others usual y have only primary service areas.53 The FCC defines the primary
service area of an AM broadcast radio station as the service area in which the groundwave is not
subject to objectionable interference or fading.54 The signal strength required for a population of
2,500 or more to receive primary service is 2 mil ivolts per meter (2 mv/m). For communities
with populations of fewer than 2,500, the required signal strength is 0.5 mv/m.
When the FCC first proposed incorporating AM contour signals in its media ownership rules, it
noted that “a one mv/m AM signal is somewhat less than the signal intensity needed to provide
service to urban populations, but somewhat greater than the signal at the outer limit of effective
non-urban service.”55
Radio Markets
The FCC also relies on the Nielsen Company to define local radio markets. These markets, cal ed
“Metros,” general y correspond to the metropolitan statistical areas defined by OMB, but are
subject to exceptions based on historical industry usage or other considerations at the discretion
of Nielsen.56 In contrast to television markets, radio markets do not include every U.S. county.57

51 T estimony of Executive Vice President and Chief Research Officer Paul Donato, the Nielsen Company , in U.S.
Congress, House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Committee on the Judiciary, Satellite
T elevision Laws in T itle 17, hearings, 113th Cong., 1st sess., September 10, 2013, H.Hrg. 113-48, p. 7 (Washington,
DC: GPO, 2015).
52 Federal Communications Commission, “Standard, FM and T elevision Broadcast Stations: Multiple Ownership;
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” 27 Federal Register 6946, 6847, July 19, 1962 (1962 Media Ownership NPRM). T he
FCC explained that although not precisely equivalent, this contour for FM broadcast radio represented the same general
level of probability for the contour the FCC used (Grade A) to predict analog broadcast television service at that time.
53 47 C.F.R. §73.182(c).
54 47 C.F.R. §73.14.
55 1962 Media Ownership NPRM, p. 6847.
56 T he Nielsen Company, Arbitron eBook Reference Guide, 2009, p. 46, at http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/
corporate/us/en/docs/nielsen-audio/guide-to-understanding-and-using.pdf.
57 Americanradiohistory.com, “Arbitron Reports and Data of Interest,” “Metropolitan Survey Area Maps,” “2013
Metro Radio Metro Areas Hi-Res,” at http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Arbitron/
2013_RadioMetroMap_hi-res.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 24 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

To determine the number of radio stations within a radio market, the FCC uses a database
compiled and updated by BIA Kelsey, another market research firm.58
Local Attribution Rules
Many licensees of commercial broadcast television and radio stations have relationships that
al ow others to exert substantial influence over the operation and finances of those licensees’
stations. FCC rules prohibit unauthorized transfers of control of licenses, including de facto
transfers of control.59
To help it enforce its media ownership rules, the FCC has developed attribution rules “to identify
those interests in or relationships to licensees that confer a degree of influence or control suc h that
the holders have a realistic potential to affect the programming decisions of licensees or other
core operating functions.”60 In such cases, the FCC may determine that an entity influences a
broadcast station’s operations and finances to a degree that triggers the FCC’s media ownership
rules, even when the FCC does not consider the entity to be the official licensee.
The following summarizes the media attribution rules, as described and modified in the 2017
Reconsideration Order, and related FCC policies.61
Joint Sales Agreements
Joint sales agreements (JSAs) enable the sales staff of one broadcast station to sel advertising
time on a separately owned station within the same local market. In 2016, the FCC adopted rules
specifying that television JSAs al owing the sale of more than 15% of the weekly advertising time
on a competing local broadcast television station are attributable as ownership or control.62
Congress subsequently twice extended the period by which parties must terminate a television
JSA in order to comply with the FCC’s rule limiting ownership of multiple television stations
within a DMA (see “Local Television Ownership Rule (Television Duopoly Rule)”), ultimately
extending the deadline to September 30, 2025.63 The FCC’s rules also specified that stations must
file copies of attributable television JSAs with the commission.64

58 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9903-9904.
59 47 U.S.C. §310(d); 47 C.F.R. §73.3540.
60 Federal Communications Commission, “Review of the Commission’s Regulations Governing Attribution of
Broadcast and Cable/MDS Interests, Review of the Commission’s Regulations and Policies Affecting Investment in the
Broadcast Industry, Reexamination of the Commission’s Cross-Interest Policy, Report and Order, FCC 99-207,” 14
FCC Record 12559, August 6, 1999. §103 of, the Satellite Extension and Localism Reauthorization Act, also prohibits
a television broadcast station from negotiating a retransmission consent contr act jointly with another broadcast station
in the same market, regardless of its audience size, unless the FCC considers the stations to be directly or indirectly
owned, operated, or controlled by the same entity. T hus, the FCC’s attribution rules affect a station’s retransmission
consent negotiations.
61 Current broadcast attribution rules, which were not addressed in either the 2014 Quadrennial Review nor the 2017
Reconsideration, are listed in 47 C.F.R. §73.3555, Note 2.
62 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9888-9890. T he FCC proposed attributing television JSAs in 2004, and
revisited the issue in 2011, but did not make a final decision. Federal Communications Commission, “ Attribution of TV
JSAs, NPRM, FCC 04-173,” 19 FCC Record 15238, July 2, 2004; Federal Communications Commission, “ 2010
Quadrennial Review, NPRM, FCC 11-186,” 26 FCC Record 17489, 17565-17566, December 22, 2011.
63 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, §626, (2015). T he first extension was through December 19, 2016, per §104
of the 2014 Satellite T elevision Extension and Localism Act ().
64 Once the media ownership and attribution rules become effective, 30 days after the FCC publishes them in the
Federal Register, broadcast station licensees must file the JSAs with the commission. 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd
Congressional Research Service

11

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

In its 2017 Reconsideration Order, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, the FCC eliminated the
television JSA attribution rule.65 The FCC determined that
JSAs can promote the public interest, and that this provides an independent reason for
eliminating the Television JSA Attribution Rule.... [They] have created efficiencies that
benefit local broadcasters—particularly in small- and medium-sized markets—and have
enabled these stations to better serve their communities.”66
With the repeal of the JSA attribution rule, broadcast television stations are no longer required to
file copies of their JSAs with the FCC.67 However, broadcast television stations must stil make
copies of JSAs available in their public inspection files.68 These files are available for review on
the FCC website.69 A JSA among commercial radio stations, whereby one station sel s 15% or
more of another same-market station’s advertising time, is attributable for the purpose of applying
the local radio ownership rule.70
Disclosure of Sharing Agreements
In August 2016, the FCC adopted new disclosure requirements for al joint operating agreements,
broadly encompassed by the term shared services agreements (SSAs) among broadcast television
stations.71 In its 2017 Reconsideration Order, the FCC upheld the SSA disclosure rule,72 which
became effective in March 2018.73 Because the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s 2017
Reconsideration Order, the SSA disclosure rule remains in effect.
The FCC defines an SSA as
any agreement or series of agreements, whether written or oral, in which
(1) a station provides any station-related services including, but not limited to,
administrative, technical, sales, and/or programming support, to a station that is not directly
or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the [FCC’s] regulations; or
(2) stations that are not directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under
the [FCC’s] regulations collaborate to provide or enable the provision of station-related
services, including, but not limited to, administrative, technical, sales, and/or programming
support, to one or more of the collaborating stations.
In this definition, the term station includes the licensee, including any subsidiaries and affiliates,
and any other individual or entity with an attributable interest in the station.

R&O, p. 9888-9989, n. 168.
65 2017 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, pp. 9846 -9854.
66 2017 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, p. 9852.
67 2017 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, p. 9873 (Revising Filing of Contracts regulation 47 C.F.R.
§73.3613(d)(2) to specify that only attributable broadcast radio JSAs need be filed with the FCC).
68 47 C.F.R. §73.3526(3)(16). T he rule applies to agreements involving stations in the same or different markets.
69 FCC, “Public Inspection Files,” at https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/.
70 47 C.F.R. §73.3555, Note 2. T he FCC decided to attribute radio JSAs in 2003. Federal Communications
Commission, 2002 Biennial Review, p. 13620.
71 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 10008-10023.
72 2017 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, pp. 9855 -9857.
73 Federal Communications Commission, “2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review, Final Rule,” 83 Federal Register
12680, March 23, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

12

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Each station that is a party to an SSA, whether in the same television market or different markets,
must file a copy of the SSA in its online public inspection file.74 The stations may redact
confidential or proprietary information. The stations must also report the substance of oral SSAs
in writing to the FCC. SSA disclosure requirements do not apply to noncommercial television
stations, radio stations, and newspapers.
The FCC declined to make SSAs attributable, and emphasized that its action was “not a pretext
for future regulation of SSAs.”75 The FCC stated that any consideration of the regulatory status of
these agreements in the future “must reflect significant study and understanding of the impact of
these agreements on station operations and a complete account of the public interest benefits
these agreements help facilitate.”
Rescission of Media Bureau’s Sidecar Policy Statement
Broadcast stations that outsource management to other stations are known as sidecars.76 In March
2014, the FCC’s Media Bureau issued a public notice stating that it would closely scrutinize any
proposed transaction that includes sidecar agreements in which two (or more) broadcast stations
in the same market enter into an arrangement to share facilities, employees, and/or services, or to
jointly acquire programming or sel advertising and enter into an option, right of first refusal,
put/cal arrangement, or other similar contingent interest, or a loan guarantee.77 In February 2017,
the FCC’s Media Bureau rescinded this guidance.78
Application of National Ownership Rules
Counting Television Households
Nielsen ranks each DMA by the estimated number of television households. Beginning in January
2021, Nielsen included “broadband-only” households for the purposes of estimating the number
of “television households” within each DMA.79 That is, it includes households that receive
television only via the Internet as wel as those that receive over-the-air broadcast transmission or
subscribe to cable and/or satel ite television services.80
The addition of broadband-only households in Nielsen’s local “television household” estimates
means that some television markets are reported as having a larger “reach” than they did
previously, while others have a smal er reach. For example, Nielsen estimated that as of January
2020, the Atlanta DMA contained about 2.3 mil ion television households, reaching 2.12% of the

74 47 C.F.R. §73.3526(3)(18).
75 2017 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, p. 9857.
76 Keach Hagey, “ Market Share: ‘Sidecar’ Deals T est Law on T V Station Consolidation ,” Wall Street Journal, October
21, 2013.
77 Federal Communications Commission, “Broadcast T V Applications Proposed Sharing Arrangements,” 29 FCC
Record 2647, 2648, March 12, 2014.
78 Federal Communications Commission, “Public Notice, DA 17 -130,” 32 FCC Record 1105, February 3, 2017.
79 Lisa Niemeyer, “Broadband Only Homes and Impression Buying in Spot T V,” MMi, March 23, 2021, at
https://www.mediaaudit.com/post/broadband-only-homes-and-impressions-buying-in-spot -tv#:~:text=
Broadband%20Only%20Homes%20are%20T V,Cable%2FSatellite%20 (ADS).&text=T he%20Nielsen%20definition%2
0also%20includes,called%20%E2%80%9CBBO%20qualified%E2%80%9D%20homes.
80 Ibid. For the purposes of measuring viewership of local television stations, Nielsen will only include broadband only
households that are able to receive local television program m ing via the Internet until October 2022.
Congressional Research Service

13

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

107 mil ion U.S. television households, making it the 10th largest DMA in the country.81 In
contrast, Nielsen estimated that as of January 2021, when it included broadband-only households,
the Atlanta market was the seventh-largest DMA in the country, with 2.6 mil ion television
households, representing 2.19% of the 121 mil ion U.S. television households.
The FCC uses Nielsen’s estimates of television households to determine the national audience
reach of a company’s total broadcast television stations when applying the national ownership
cap.
UHF Discount
In 1985 the FCC adopted a rule that, for the purpose of applying its national ownership rule,
discounted the number of television households reached within a DMA by stations operating in
the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band by half in measuring a station owner’s reach. This
adjustment reflected the physical limitations of UHF signals, which general y provided poorer
picture quality than signals in the Very High Frequency (VHF) band at the time the FCC adopted
the rule.82 As of September 30, 1985, 41.2% of the 920 commercial stations operated in the UHF
band.83
On June 12, 2009, however, broadcast television stations completed a transition from analog to
digital service pursuant to a statutory mandate.84 Following this switch, UHF stations had a
technological advantage, and more broadcast television licenses began to operate on these
frequencies. By December 2009, 73% of the 1,392 commercial stations operated in the UHF
band.85 As of March 2021, the percentage has remained stable: 72.5% of the 1,374 commercial
stations in operation are in the UHF band.86 Several licensees have successfully petitioned the
FCC to change the channels of broadcast stations from VHF to UHF frequencies, and more may
continue to do so.87 For example, in May 2021, the FCC granted a petition filed by Gray
Television to change the channel al otted to its station licensed to serve Lubbock, TX, noting that
Gray states that the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain
propagation characteristics which may cause reception issues for some viewers, and that
many of [Gray’s] viewers experience significant difficulty receiving [the station’s] signal.
... The [Media] Bureau believes the public interest would be served because it will result
in improved service.88

81 CRS estimates of DMA household reach based on data from the Nielsen Company . T he Nielsen Company, “Local
T elevision Market Universe Estimates Comparisons of 2019 -2020 and 2020-2021 Market Ranks,” available at
https://azbroadcasters.org/2020/10/16/nielsen-releases-2021-tv-estimates-for-arizona/.
82 Federal Communications Commission, “ Amendment of Section 73.3555 [formerly Sections 73.35, 73.240 and
73.636] of the Commission’s Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of AM, FM and T elevision Broadcast Stations,
Memorandum Opinion and Order,” 100 FCC Reports, 2nd Series, 74, 92-94, February 1, 1985 (1985 T V Ownership
Reconsideration).
83 Federal Communications Commission, 51st Annual Report: Fiscal Year 1985, Washington, DC, 1985, p. 21.
84 47 U.S.C. §309(j)(14)(A). Full-power analog television service therefore has terminated.
85 Federal Communications Commission, “Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the
Delivery of Video Programming, Fourteenth Report, FCC 12 -81,” 27 FCC Record 8610, July 20, 2012.
86 Federal Communications Commission, “Broadcast T otals as of March 31, 2021,” available at https://www.fcc.gov/
edocs/search-results?t=advanced&titleT ext=broadcast%20station%20totals.
87 A search in the database “Lexis +” of FCC Reports and Orders featuring the search terms “Amendment of Section
73.622 (i)” and “Post -Transition Table of Allotments” from 2016 through 2021 results in a list of 23 such successful
petitions in communities throughout the United States.
88 Federal Communications Commission, “T elevision Broadcasting Services Lubbock, T exas,” 86 Federal Register
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 34 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

In September 2013, under then-Acting FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn, the FCC proposed
eliminating the UHF discount, citing the completed transition to digital broadcasting.89 In
September 2016, the FCC, under then-Chairman Thomas Wheeler, eliminated the UHF discount
effective November 2016.90 In a dissenting statement, then-Commissioner Ajit Pai contended that
the FCC lacked the authority to review the UHF discount without simultaneously reviewing the
national audience cap.91 In April 2017, after Commissioner Pai became chairman, the FCC
reinstated the UHF discount.92 In December 2017, the FCC launched a new rulemaking
proceeding to examine whether to modify or rescind the UHF discount and national ownership
cap.93 As of May 2021, that proceeding remains open.94
With the discount, a single entity that owns exclusively UHF stations could effectively reach 78%
of U.S. television households, or double the current national ownership cap of 39% of U.S.
television households. Based on Nielsen’s 2021 estimates of television households, the largest
owner of broadcast television stations, Nexstar Media Group, Inc., reaches 62.0% of U.S.
television households with its owned and operated stations without the UHF discount and 38.2%
of U.S. television households with the discount.95 In For more information about the history of
the UHF discount and national ownership cap, see Table A-1.
Remote Shared Services, Joint Sales, Operating, and
Financial Agreements
When parties request that the FCC al ow them to transfer broadcast television licenses, they must
ensure that they comply with al FCC rules, including the FCC’s media ownership rules. In the
event of a transfer of operational and financial agreements involving broadcast stations, rather
than an actual license, the parties need not discuss how such arrangements relate to the national
ownership rule. In contrast to its attribution rules regarding local media ownership, the FCC has
not issued a formal rulemaking regarding its treatment of sharing, sales, operating, and financial
agreements, with respect to national media ownership. Instead, it has either articulated its policy
on an ad hoc basis in reviewing merger applications, or remained silent. The following
summarizes past decisions by the FCC’s Media Bureau and commissioners regarding these
relationships.

24339-24340, May 6, 2021.
89 Federal Communications Commission, “Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission’s Natio nal T elevision
Multiple Ownership Rule,” 28 FCC Record 14324, September 26, 2013.
90 Federal Communications Commission, “National T elevision Multiple Ownership Rule, Final Rule, FCC 16 -116,” 81
Federal Register 73035, October 23, 2016.
91 Federal Communications Commission, “National T elevision Multiple Ownership Rule, Report and Order, FCC 16 -
116,” 31 FCC Record 10213, 10247-10248, September 7, 2016 (2016 UHF Discount Order).
92 Federal Communications Commission, “Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission’s Rules, National
T elevision Multiple Ownership Rule, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 17 -40,” 32 FCC Record 3390, April 21, 2017.
93 Federal Communications Commission, “Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission’s Rules, National
T elevision Multiple Ownership Rule, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17 -169,” 32 FCC Record 10785,
December 18, 2017.
94 Federal Communications Commission, “Search for Filings, Docket Number MB 17 -318,” at https://www.fcc.gov/
ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-318&sort=date_disseminated,DESC (visited May 7, 2021).
95 CRS estimates based on data from the Nielsen Company and Nexstar Media Group, Inc. company data. Nexstar
Media Group, Inc., “Stations,” at https://www.nexstar.tv/stations/ (visited May 7, 2021).
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 28 link to page 22 link to page 22 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Tribune Operation of Stations in Virginia and Pennsylvania
In 2013, when Local TV LLC applied to the FCC to transfer control of its broadcast television
station licenses to Tribune Media Company and Dreamcatcher Broadcasting LLC, Tribune
proposed that Dreamcatcher would be the new licensee of Local TV’s stations in the Norfolk-
Portsmouth-Newport News, VA, and Wilkes-Barre–Scranton–Hazleton, PA, television markets.
Tribune, however, would operate the stations pursuant to shared services agreements (but not
joint sales agreements) with Dreamcatcher. The FCC’s media bureau (but not the full
commission)
[d]isagree[d] with [opponents of the proposed arrangement] that the facts here show that
Tribune will be operating the Dreamcatcher Stations as though it owned them outright.
Dreamcatcher will be run by a highly experienced broadcaster, with established
independence from Tribune.96
Because Tribune already owned newspapers in those markets, in order to comply with the FCC’s
now-defunct rule prohibiting common ownership of newspapers and television stations within the
same DMA (described in “Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule”), it did not try to take
control of the broadcast licenses in those markets. However, FCC’s Media Bureau staff did not
directly address how its determination that Tribune would not exercise control over the
Dreamcatcher stations applied to compliance with the national ownership rule.97
Sinclair Operation of Stations in Pennsylvania and Florida
In September 2013, Sinclair Broadcast Group and New Age Media announced that the companies
had entered into an agreement whereby Sinclair would acquire New Age’s television stations,
including two stations in the Wilkes-Barre–Scranton–Hazleton, PA, and one station in the
Gainesvil e, FL, markets.98 In addition, the licensee of stations that New Age operated pursuant to
joint sales and sharing agreements in those two markets, MPS, agreed to transfer the licenses of
those stations to another company, which would then enter into joints sales and sharing
agreements with Sinclair. This arrangement would have enabled Sinclair to, in effect, operate four
stations in the Pennsylvania market and two in the Florida market.

96 Federal Communications Commission, “Applications of Local T V Holdings, LLC, T ransferor and T ribune Broadcast
Company II, LLC, T ransferee and Dreamcatcher Broadcasting, LLC, T ransferee for Consent to T ransfer of Control of
Certain Licensee Subsidiaries of Local T V Holdings, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 13 -2422,” 28 FCC
Record 16850, 16857, December 20, 2013.
97 In connection with Nexstar’s 2018 merger agreement to acquire T ribune’s stations and assets (described in “ Nexstar
Operation and Financing of Station in New York City”), T ribune exercised its options to purchase the licenses of
WT KR(DT ) and WGNT (DT ) in the Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News, VA DMA, and WNEP -T V the Wilkes-Barre–
Scranton–Hazleton, PA DMA. Concurrently with T ribune’s exercise of the purchase option, it transferred control of the
Virginia licenses to Scripps Broadcasting Holdings, Inc. and the Pennsylvania license to T EGNA Broadcasting, LLC.
Federal Communications Commission, “Applications of T ribune Media Company (T ransferor) and Nexstar Media
Group, Inc. (T ransferee), et. al. for T ransfer of Control of T ribune Media Company to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. and
Assignment of Certain Broadcast Licenses and T ransfer of Control of Certain Entities Holding Broadcast Licenses,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 18-89,” 34 FCC Record 8437, 8440-8441, September 16, 2019. (2019 Nexstar-
T ribune Order.)
98 Sinclair Broadcast Corporation, “Sinclair Broadcast Group Announces Agreement to Purchase New Age Media T V
Stations,” press release, September 25, 2013, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sinclair-broadcast-group-
announces-agreement -to-purchase-new-age-media-tv-stations-225233272.html.
Congressional Research Service

16

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

In October 2014, the parties requested that the FCC dismiss their applications for transfer of the
stations’ licenses.99 The agency dismissed the applications in November 2014.100 Nonetheless,
Sinclair completed its purchase of non-license assets from New Age Media in November 2014.101
In addition, Sinclair entered services agreements with New Age Media and other licensees of
stations in the Wilkes-Barre–Scranton–Hazleton, PA, and Gainesvil e, FL, markets.102 Because
the purchase of the non-license assets did not require FCC approval, the agency did not issue a
written statement regarding how it would view Sinclair’s interests with respect to the national cap
on broadcast station ownership.
Proposed (and Rejected) Sinclair Operation of Station in Chicago, IL
Four years later, in June 2017, Sinclair and Tribune Media applied to the FCC to transfer control
of Tribune’s broadcast licenses to Sinclair.103 In 2018, the companies filed a new set of
applications to divest certain stations to third parties, in order to comply with the FCC’s media
ownership rules.104 Among other stations, the companies proposed to divest WGN-TV, in the
Chicago television market, to Steven Fader, the CEO of a car dealership group in which Sinclair’s
executive chairman, David Smith, holds a controlling interest and on whose board of directors he
serves.105 Under the terms of the parties’ agreement, Steven Fader was to pay $60 mil ion for the
station’s license, while Sinclair would pay Tribune for WGN-TV’s non-license assets, program
the station, sel the station’s advertising, and retain an option to purchase the station’s license
within an eight-year period.106

99 See, for example, Letter from Daniel A. Kirkpatrick, Counsel, New Age Media of Pennsylvania License, LLC;
Fletcher, Health, and Hildreth, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, October 31,
2014, at http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=54340.
100 See, for example, Federal Communications Commission, Licensing and Management System, File Number
BALCDT -20130925AOH, at https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/dataentry/public/tv/publicAppSearchResults.html
(indicating the FCC dismissed the application for transfer of control of the license of WOLF-T V in the Wilkes-Barre–
Scranton–Hazleton, PA television market from New Age Media to Sinclair on November 14, 2014).
101 Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., SEC Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2015, p. 41.
102 Master Services Agreement between Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. and New Age Media of Pennsylvania License,
LLC signed October 31, 2014 at https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/tv-profile/wolf-tv/time-brokerage-agreements/ecc896e7-
6989-9096-f0f4-8b0558faafcf/. Joint Amendment to Joint Sales and Shared Services Agreements between MPS Media
of Gainesville License, LLC; MPS Media of T allahassee License, LLC; MPS Media of Pennsylvania License, LLC;
and Sinclair T elevision Group, Inc. made September 1, 2015 (referencing previous amendment made October 31,
2014) at https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/tv-profile/wswb/joint -sales-agreements/1bed5250-3746-e553-1347-5e74f377b4db/.
Master Services Agreement between Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. and New Age Media of Gainesville License, LLC
signed October 31, 2014 at https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/tv-profile/wgfl/time-brokerage-agreements/3b22effa-7844-769a-
e100-db3fcdb6b632/.
103 Federal Communications Commission, General Counsel, “Sinclair and T ribune, MB Docket 17 -179,” at
https://www.fcc.gov/transaction/sinclair-tribune.
104 Federal Communications Commission, “Media Bureau Establishes Consolidated Pleading Cycle for Amendments to
the June 26, 2017, Applications to T ransfer Control of T ribune Media Company to Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.,
Related New Divestiture Applications, and T op -Four Showings in T wo Markets, Public Notice, DA 18 -530” 33 FCC
Record 4960, 4961 May 21, 2018.
105 FCC Form 314 Application for T ransfer of Control from WGN Continental Broadcasting Company, LLC to WGN
Licensee, LLC, dated April 28, 2018, at https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/api/service/tv/application/1783802.html. (2018
WGN License T ransfer Application) See also Joe Flint and John McKinnon, “Sinclair Faces Federal Resistance Over
Proposed Purchase of T ribune Media,” Wall Street Journal, April 10, 2018, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/sinclair-
faces-fcc-resistance-over-tribune-purchase-1523387359?mod=djemalertNEWS.
106 2018 WGN License T ransfer Application, Attachment 5.
Congressional Research Service

17

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

In July 2018, the FCC found that the proposed transaction would not be in the public interest and
voted to designate it for a hearing before an FCC administrative law judge.107 According to the
FCC, the proposal raised “significant questions as to whether those proposed divestitures were in
fact ‘sham’ transactions.”108 Specifical y, the commissioners stated that the proposed divestiture
of WGN-TV could effectively be a “sham” transaction because:
1. the proposed buyer had no previous experience in broadcasting,
2. the proposed buyer served as CEO of an automotive dealer holding company in
which Sinclair’s executive chairman had a controlling interest,
3. the automotive dealer holding company was both a tenant and advertiser of
Sinclair,
4. the proposed buyer would have purchased the station at a price that appeared to
be significantly below market value,109
5. Sinclair would have had an option to buy back the station in the future,
6. Sinclair would have owned most of WGN-TV’s assets, and
7. pursuant to a number of agreements, Sinclair would have been responsible for
many aspects of the station’s operation.110
Although the parties withdrew the divestiture applications prior to the FCC’s vote of its hearing
designation order, the commissioners nonetheless found that material questions remained
regarding whether “Sinclair engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in its applications
with the Commission.”111 As the FCC noted,
While each of the individual agreements discussed herein (e.g., JSAs, SSAs, options, and
loan guarantees) would not, standing alone, give rise to a substantial and material question
as to the issues of real party in interest, they do give rise to such a question when considered
together and combined with the other factors discussed herein.112
In August 2018, Tribune terminated the merger agreement with Sinclair.113
Nexstar Operation and Financing of Station in New York City
In December 2018, Tribune reached an agreement with Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. to sel its
broadcast licenses and assets. In order to comply with the FCC’s national media ownership rules,
the parties filed an application with the FCC to divest several licenses, including WPIX in the

107 Federal Communications Commission, “Applications of T ribune Media Company (T ransferor) and Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Inc. (T ransferee) for T ransfer of Control of T ribune Media Company and Certain Subsidiaries
WDCW(T V), et. al. and for Assignment of Certain Licenses from T ribune Media Company and Certain Subsidiaries,
Hearing Designation Order, FCC 18-200,” 33 FCC Rcd 6830, July 19, 2018.
108 Ibid.
109 For example, the FCC stated, in 2002 Fox T elevision Stations, Inc. purchased WPWR-T V, Chicago, IL, for
$425,000,000—over seven times the sales price for WGN-T V. Ibid., p. 6837.
110 Ibid., pp. 6830-6831, 6833.
111 Ibid., pp. 6831, 6835.
112 Ibid., p. 6835, n. 41.
113 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., “Sinclair T ribune Merger T erminated; Sinclair Files with FCC to Withdraw Merger
Application and Files a Motion to T erminate the Hearing Before the Administrative Law Judge,” press release, August
9, 2018, https://sbgi.net/pr-news/sinclair-tribune-merger-agreement-terminated-sinclair-files-with-the-fcc-to-withdraw-
the-merger-application-and-files-a-motion-to-terminate-the-hearing-before-the-administrative-law-judge/.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 21 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

New York television market—the largest in the country—to Scripps Broadcast Holdings, Inc.114
The companies’ asset purchase agreement (dated March 20, 2019) included an option for Nexstar
to purchase al of WPIX’s assets from Scripps at any time between March 31, 2020, and
December 31, 2021.115 Nexstar agreed to pay an option purchase price of $75 mil ion, plus an
escalation amount per day from the date of the option agreement until the completion of the
acquisition.116 In September 2020, Nexstar assigned its rights under the option agreement to
Mission Broadcasting, Inc., which in turn exercised the option to purchase WPIX’s assets,
including the license.
Scripps and Mission subsequently filed an application with the FCC to assign WPIX’s license to
Mission.117 The FCC’s Media Bureau granted approval in December 2020.118 As Mission’s FCC
application and Nexstar’s annual 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission note,
Nexstar and Mission have the following relationships:
 Nexstar is a guarantor of Mission’s senior credit facility.119
 Nexstar programs WPIX 24 hours per day, 7 days per week; sel s the station’s
advertising time; and represents the station in retransmission consent
negotiations.120
 Nexstar has an option to purchase WPIX’s assets.121
Mission paid $88.1 mil ion in cash for WPIX’s assets in December 2020, through a combination
of borrowing from its revolving credit facility and cash on hand.122 Research firm S&P Global
estimates that WPIX generated about $144.6 mil ion in revenue in 2020. As a point of
comparison, S&P Global estimates that WXTV, another New York station, generated $173
mil ion in 2020, and that an investor group purchased the station’s assets for $491.1 mil ion in
December 2020—more than 5.6 times what Mission paid for WXTV.123 Thus, similarly to the
instance described in “Proposed (and Rejected) Sinclair Operation of Station in Chicago, IL,” this
price appears to be significantly below the station’s market value.
Nonetheless, as Nexstar stated in its SEC Form 10-K, its relationship with WPIX in New York is
not attributable when the FCC evaluates the company’s national reach because Nexstar does not

114 2019 Nexstar-T ribune Order, pp. 8441-8442. The other stations are in the Miami, FL, and Phoenix, AZ, television
markets.
115 WPIX, LLC FCC Form 314 Application for Consent to Assignment of Broadcast Station Construction Permit or
Licensee, Attachment 5, Asset Purchase Agreement, Exhibit D, April 3, 2019, at https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/api/service/
tv/application/1802309.html.
116 Ibid., Article I, §1.3(b).
117 Scripps Media, Inc. FCC Form 314 Application for Consent to Assignment of Broadcast Station Con struction
Permit or Licensee, September 1, 2020, at https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/api/service/tv/application/1819389.html.
118 Federal Communications Commission, “Public Notice, Broadcast Actions,” p. 2, December 4, 2020, at
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-368530A1.pdf.
119 Ibid.
120 Local Programming and Marketing Agreement Between Mission Broadcasting, Inc. (Licensee) and Nexstar Inc.,
dated December 30, 2020, §2 (programming), §3 (revenues), at https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/tv-profile/wpix/time-
brokerage-agreements/3dd386c5-6769-392f-2afa-341d914cfb99/.
121 Nexstar Media Group, Inc. SEC Form 10-K for the Period Ended December 31, 2020, p. 51, at https://www.sec.gov/
ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001142417/000156459021009747/nxst-10k_20201231.htm. (Nexstar 2020 SEC Form
10-K.)
122 Ibid., p. F-30.
123 S&P Global Marketplace database (available by subscription).
Congressional Research Service

19

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

own a station in that market.124 If the FCC were to consider WPIX attributable to Nexstar, the
company’s national ownership reach, based on Nielsen’s 2021 estimates of U.S. television
households, would be 44% with the UHF discount, and 68.1% without it, thereby exceeding the
national ownership cap in either case.125
Ownership Rules Subject to Quadrennial Review
The FCC has had five distinct sets of rules governing ownership of multiple media outlets in a
single market: (1) local television ownership rules (known as the television duopoly rules); (2)
local radio ownership rules; (3) radio/television cross-ownership rules; (4) newspaper/broadcast
cross-ownership rules; and (5) the dual network rule.
Local Television Ownership Rule (Television Duopoly Rule)
The local television ownership rule (known as the television duopoly rule) limits common
ownership of television stations serving the same geographic region. An entity may own or
control two television stations in the same television market, so long as the overlap of the
stations’ signals is limited and the joint control does not include two of the four most widely
watched stations within the market. The FCC may make exceptions to the “top four” prohibition
on a case-by-case basis, depending on the conditions in a particular DMA.
The FCC initial y adopted a TV duopoly rule in 1941, barring a single entity from owning two or
more broadcast television stations that “would substantial y serve the same area.”126 In 1964, the
FCC adopted the signal overlap component of the rules. The FCC sought to limit “future
ownership to a maximum of two stations in most states and, thus .. act indirectly to curb regional
concentrations of ownership as wel as overlap itself.”127
In 1999, the FCC adopted the “top four ranked/eight voices” test, under which it would approve a
merger among two of the “top four” stations so long as at least eight independently owned and
operating commercial or noncommercial full-power broadcast television stations would remain in
the DMA after the proposed combination was consummated. It also adopted waiver criteria.128
The “top four ranked” stations in a local market general y are the local affiliates of the four major
English-language broadcast television networks—ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. The rules apply to
the stations’ ranking at the time they apply for common ownership. While making some technical
modifications, the FCC retained the television duopoly rules in 2016.129
In its 2017 Reconsideration Order, the FCC eliminated the “eight voices” component of the
test.130 Furthermore, it decided that in applying the restriction on ownership of two top-four-
ranked stations in the same market, it would conduct case-by-case evaluations to account for

124 Nexstar 2020 SEC Form 10-K, p. 18.
125 CRS estimates based on data from Nexstar Media Group corporate website and the Nielsen Company.
126 Federal Communications Commission, “Part 4—Broadcast Services Other T han Standard Broadcast,” 6 Federal
Register 2282, 2284-2285, May 6, 1941. This was the year that commercial television service first became available in
the United States.
127 Federal Communications Commission, “Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and T elevision Broadcast Stations,
FCC 64-445,” 29 Federal Register 7535, 7537, June 12, 1964.
128 Federal Communications Commission, “Review of the Commission’s Regulations Governing T elevision
Broadcasting, T elevision Satellite Stations Review of Policy and Rules, Report and Order, FCC 99-209,” 14 FCC
Record 12903, 12931-12941, August 6, 1999 (1999 Media Ownership R&O).
129 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9870-9896.
130 2014 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, pp. 9831 -9840.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

circumstances in which the application of the prohibition may be unwarranted. The FCC found
that the modification to the television duopoly rule would not be likely to harm minority and
female ownership of broadcast stations.
Table 1 summarizes the rules, including waiver circumstances.
Table 1. Local TV Ownership (Duopoly) Rule
Permitted Combinations of TV Stations in a Market
Top-Four Prohibition
Signal Overlap
Waiver Criteria
Notes
General y, at least one of
Or the digital noise
On a case-by-case basis,
Stations cannot switch
the stations is not among
limited service contours
the FCC wil consider
broadcast network
the four highest-ranked
(NLSC) of the stations do
waivers if
affiliations if the switch
stations in the DMA.
not overlap.
(1) one station failed/is
would result in one party

failing. Applicants must
directly or indirectly
demonstrate that an in-
owning, operating, or
market buyer is the only
control ing two of the
entity ready, wil ing, and
top-four-rated television
able to operate the
stations within the DMA
station, and that sale to a
at the time of the
buyer outside of the
agreement.
market would result in an
artificial y depressed
price.a
or
(2) the combination will
result in the construction
of an unbuilt station. The
permittee of the unbuilt
station must demonstrate
that it has made
reasonable efforts to
construct but has been
unable to do so.

The FCC may consider
waivers to the top-four
prohibition on a case-by-
case basis. An applicant
may request that the FCC
determine whether
permitting it to directly or
indirectly own, operate,
or control, two television
stations licensed in the
same DMA would serve
the public interest,
convenience, and
necessity, due to specific
circumstances in a local
market or with respect to
a specific transaction.b
Sources: 47 C.F.R. §73.3555(b); 47 C.F.R. §73.3555, Note 7; 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O; 2017
Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, pp. 9838-9839.
a. A station is considered “failed” if it has not been in operation due to financial distress for at least four
consecutive months immediately prior to the application, or is a debtor in an involuntary bankruptcy or
Congressional Research Service

21

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

insolvency proceeding at the time of the application. A station is considered to be “failing” if it has an al -day
audience share of no more than 4% and has had negative cash flow for three consecutive years immediately
prior to the application. The Failed Station Solicitation Rule requires licensees seeking to apply for a failed
station/failing station waiver of the television duopoly rules to notify the public that a failed/failing station is
for sale and to demonstrate that it was unsuccessful in securing an out-of-market buyer for the station.
b. Information that would make such a case could include, but is not limited to, the fol owing: (1) station
ratings share data; (2) station revenue share data, including advertising (on-air and digital) and
retransmission consent fees; (3) market characteristics, such as population and the number and types of
broadcast television stations; (4) likely effects on programming meeting the needs and interests of the
community; and (5) any other circumstances affecting the market.
Relief from Rule
In 2016, the FCC retained its “failed station/failing station” waiver test. Under this policy, to
obtain a waiver of the local television (duopoly) rule, an applicant must demonstrate that (1) one
of the broadcast television stations involved in the proposed transaction is either failed or failing;
(2) the in-market buyer is the only reasonably available candidate wil ing and able to acquire and
operate the station; and (3) sel ing the station to an out-of-market buyer would result in an
artificial y depressed price.131 The FCC declined to relax its criteria for determining whether a
station is failing or failed, stating that parties might be able to manipulate the data used to
determine the criteria.132
Local Radio Ownership Rule
The local radio ownership rule limits ownership of radio stations serving the same geographic
area. In 2017, the FCC adopted a presumptive waiver of the local radio ownership rule in limited
circumstances.133 In contrast to the television duopoly rule, the FCC does not have failed/failing
station waiver criteria for the local radio ownership rule.134
FCC first adopted rules limiting ownership of FM radio stations serving “substantial y the same
service area” in 1940.135 In 1943, the FCC adopted a rule limiting ownership of AM radio stations
“where such station renders or wil render primary service to a substantial portion of the primary
service area of another [AM] broadcast station.”136 In 1964, the FCC amended the rule to use the

131 47 C.F.R. §73.3555, note 7.
132 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9891.
133 2014 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, pp. 9841 -9845. Specifically, the FCC adopted a presumption
in favor of applying a two-pronged test involving existing “ parent markets” with multiple “ embedded markets” (i.e.,
New York and Washington, DC). An embedded market is a suburban radio market that Nielsen separately identifies as
a radio market for which it reports ratings. Radio stations licensed to communities in embedded markets are also
considered part of a larger “ parent” market encompassing an entire metropolitan area. Under the two-pronged test, the
FCC reviews (1) whether the ownership of the stations in question complies with the ownership rules in the embedded
market to which they are home (using the Nielsen data for that market), and (2) whether the ownership of the stations in
question complies with the ownership rules using the contour meth odology that would apply in nonrated markets.
(Petition for Reconsideration of Connoisseur Media, LLC, 20 14 Quadrennial Review, December 1, 2016, pp. 3 -4, 13.
134 Pursuant to §202(b)(2) of the T elecommunications Act of 1996, however, the FCC may, notwithstanding any
ownership limits, permit a person or entity to own, operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in, radio broadcast
stations if the FCC determines that such ownership, operation, control, or interest will result in an increase in the
number of radio broadcast stations in operation.
135 Federal Communications Commission, “Part 3—Rules Governing Standard and High Frequency Broadcast
Stations,” 5 Federal Register 2382, 2384, June 25, 1940.
136 Federal Communications Commission, “Part 3—Rules Governing Standard and High Frequency Broadcast Stations:
Multiple Ownership of Standard Broadcast Stations,” 8 Federal Register 16065-16066, November 27, 1943.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 27 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

service contours of FM and AM stations to define the service area.137 The FCC first adopted a
rule limiting ownership of AM and FM stations serving the same area in 1970 and amended them
in 1989.138
In 1992, to address the fact that many radio stations were facing difficult financial conditions, the
FCC relaxed the radio ownership rule to establish numerical limits on radio station ownership
based on the total number of commercial stations within a market, rather than on whether their
signals overlapped.139 Congress directed the FCC to set new caps, according to instructions in
Section 202(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These limits, described in Table 2,
remain in place today. In 2016, the FCC retained the local radio ownership rule, and in 2017
adopted a presumptive waiver of the rule under limited circumstances.140
Table 2. Local Radio Ownership Rule
Number of Full Power
Commercial and
Number of Stations Within
Noncommercial Radio Stations
Same Service (AM or FM)
Number of Commercial Radio
Under Common Ownership
Under Common Ownership
Stations in Market
Permitted
Permitted
45
8
5
30-44
7
4
15-29
6
4
14 or fewer
5
3
Source: 47 C.F.R. §73.3555(a).
Note: An entity may not own more than 50% of the stations in markets with 14 or fewer total stations, except
that an entity always may own a single AM and single FM station in combination.

137 Federal Communications Commission, “Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and T elevision Broadcast Stations,
FCC 64-445,” 29 Federal Register 7535-7537, June 12, 1964. At the time, the FCC used a 1 mv/m signal contour for
both AM and FM stations in its local radio ownership rules, arguing that the standards for both services were roughly
comparable, because a 1 mv/m signal provided adequate lev els of service in less-populated areas where overlap
between co-owned stations was more likely to occur.
138 Federal Communications Commission, “Amendment of Sections 73.35, 73.240 and 73.636 of the Commission
Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and T elevision Broadcast Stations, FCC 70 -310, First Report
and Order,” 5 FCC Reports 306, March 25, 1970 (1970 Cross Ownership R&O). Federal Communications
Commission, “Amendment of Section 73.3555 of the Commission’s Rules, the Broadcast Multiple Ownership Rules,
Report and Order, FCC 88-343,” 4 FCC Record 1723, February 22, 1989.
139 Federal Communications Commission, “Revision of Radio Rules and Policies, Report and Order, FCC 92 -97,” 7
FCC Record 2755, 2756-2757, 2757-2779, April 10, 1992.
140 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9897; 2014 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, pp. 9841 -
9845. T he petition to reconsider filed by Connoisseur Media sought to modify, rather than repeal, the local radio
ownership rule. T herefore, the 2014 Order on Reconsideration addressed the proposed modification, rather than a
general review of the rule. As of May 2021, neither the T hird Circuit nor the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed this
modification directly.
Congressional Research Service

23

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Clarifications
In 2016, the FCC clarified certain aspects of its local radio ownership rule. One of the
clarifications related to the application of the rule in cases when Nielsen changes the boundaries
of radio markets (i.e., Nielsen Audio Metros).141 In another clarification, the FCC stated that in
Puerto Rico, the FCC wil use radio station signal contour overlaps, rather than the Nielsen Audio
Metro, to apply the local radio ownership rule due to topographical and market conditions.142
Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule
In 2017, the FCC eliminated the radio/television cross-ownership rule.143 This rule prohibited an
entity from owning more than two television stations and one radio station within the same DMA,
unless the DMA met certain criteria.
The FCC found that it could no longer justify retention of the rule in light of broadcast radio’s
diminished contributions to viewpoint diversity and the variety of other media outlets that
contribute to viewpoint diversity in local markets. The FCC reaffirmed its previous conclusion in
2016 that the radio/television cross-ownership rule is not necessary to promote competition or
localism. The FCC also determined that the elimination of the rule would not likely have a
negative impact on minority and female ownership.
Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule
The FCC repealed the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership (NBCO) rule in 2017.144 The rule
prohibited common ownership of a daily print newspaper and a full-power broadcast station (AM,
FM, or TV) if the station’s service contour encompassed the newspaper’s community of
publication. The FCC found that prohibiting newspaper/broadcast combinations was no longer
necessary to serve the agency’s goal of promoting viewpoint diversity in light of the multiplicity
of sources of news and information in the current media marketplace and the diminished role of
daily print newspapers, and therefore did not serve the public interest. The FCC noted that given
its conclusion in 2003 that the rule was not necessary to promote the goals of competition or
localism, and could potential y hinder localism, viewpoint diversity had remained the principal
rationale for maintaining the NBCO rule.
The FCC determined repealing the NBCO rule could potential y promote localism by enabling
local news outlets to achieve efficiencies by combining resources needed to gather, report, and
disseminate local news and information. Furthermore, the FCC concluded that eliminating the
NBCO rule would not have a material impact on minority and female ownership.
Dual Network Rule
The dual network rule (described in detail at 47 C.F.R. §73.658(g)) prohibits common ownership
of two of the “top four” networks but otherwise permits common ownership of multiple broadcast

141 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9905-9906. T he clarification relates to safeguards that the FCC previously
adopted to deter parties from attempting to manipulate Nielsen Audio Metro market definitions for purposes of
circumventing the local radio ownership Rule.
142 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9907. Nielsen considers Puerto Rico to be a single radio market.
143 2014 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, pp. 9824 -9831.
144 2014 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM, pp. 9806 -9824.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 30 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

networks.145 General y, the four broadcast networks covered by this definition are ABC, CBS,
Fox, and NBC. The FCC did not address the dual network rule in its 2017 Reconsideration Order,
and the rule therefore remains in effect.
The FCC first adopted this rule, which original y prohibited ownership of any two networks, with
respect to radio in 1941, as part of the Chain Broadcasting Report.146 The FCC directed the rule at
NBC, the only company at that time with two radio networks. The FCC found that the operation
of two networks gave NBC excessive control over its affiliated broadcast radio stations, and an
unfair competitive advantage over other broadcast radio networks.147 The FCC extended the dual
network rule to television networks in 1946.148
Section 202(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directed the FCC to revise its dual
network rule. Per the act, the FCC modified the rule to enable common ownership of two
networks, including either of the two emerging networks in existence at that time, as long as one
of the networks was not among the top four networks (i.e., ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC).149 In
2001, the FCC revised the rule to permit one of the four major networks to jointly own one of
those emerging networks, which have since merged into the CW network.150 Today, the CBS
Corporation has a partial ownership interest in the CW broadcast network.151 In 2016, the FCC
retained the “dual network” rule without modification, in order to foster its goals of preserving
competition and localism.152
Table 3 summarizes the public-interest rationales for each of the media ownership rules.

145 T he rule provides the following: “A television broadcast station may affiliate with a person or entity that maintains
two or more networks of television broadcast stations unless such dual or multiple networks are composed of two or
more persons or entities that, on February 8, 1996, were ‘networks’ as defined in Section 73.3613(a)(1) of the
Commission’s regulations (that is, ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC).” 47 C.F.R. §73.658(g). Because the FCC does not
directly regulate broadcast networks, the rule applies to the stations which affiliate with the networks.
146 Federal Communications Commission, Report on Chain Broadcasting, Order No. 37, Docket No. 5060, May 1941,
pp. 91-92, at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b78643;view=1up;seq=8.
147 Federal Communications Commission, Report on Chain Broadcasting, pp. 70-73. T he FCC repealed the rules for
radio in 1977. Federal Communications Commission, “Review of Commission Rules and Regulatory Policies
Concerning Network Broadcasting by Standard (AM) and FM Broadcast Stations, Report, Statement of Policy, and
Order, FCC 77-206,” 63 FCC Reports, Second Series 674, March 23, 1977.
148 Federal Communications Commission, “Part 3—Rules Governing T elevision Broadcast Stations,” 11 Federal
Register 33, 37, January 1, 1946.
149 Federal Communications Commission, “Implementation of Sections 202(c)(1) and 202(e) of the
T elecommunications Act of 1996 (National Broadcast T elevision Ownership and Dual Network Operations) 47 C.F.R.
Sections 73.658(g) and 73.3555, Order, FCC 96-91,” 11 FCC Record 12374, 12376, March 8, 1996. As the FCC order
states, the two networks were United Paramount Network (UPN) and Warner Brothers (WB).
150 Federal Communications Commission, “Amendment of Section 73.658(g) of the Commission’s Rule s—T he Dual
Network Rule,” 16 FCC Record 11114, May 15, 2001.
151 CBS Corporation, “Our Portfolio: T he CW,” at https://www.cbscorporation.com/portfolio/the-cw/.
152 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9952-9960.
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 30 link to page 30 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Table 3. Summary of Public-Interest Rationales for Media Ownership Rules
Newspaper
Local
Radio/TV
/ Broadcast

Local TV
Radio
Crossa
Crossa
Dual Network
Necessary to
Yes; for viewers
Yes;
No
No
Yes
promote
and revenues
broadcast
competition?
radio unique
product
market
Necessary to
Consistent with; No, but
No
No
Yes; preserves
promote localism?
competition
consistent
balance of bargaining
stimulates
with; may
power between
localism
promote
networks and
affiliates, enabling
affiliates to influence
networks’
programming
decisions in manner
that serves affiliates’
communities
Necessary to
Wil promote;
No, but
No
No
FCC does not
promote viewpoint
ensures
consistent
discuss
diversity?
presence of
with; may
independently
promote
owned TV
stations
Necessary to
Consistent with; Consistent
No
No
No; no meaningful
promote
competition can
with;
impact
minority/female
indirectly
competition
ownership of
promote; failed
can indirectly
broadcast stations?
station
promote
solicitation rule

promotes

Sources: 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O.
a. 2014 Quadrennial Review Order on Recon and NPRM.
Ownership Diversity
2016 FCC Diversity Order
The FCC has a long history of attempts to adopt rules to encourage diverse broadcast station
ownership, including ownership by women and members of minority groups.153

153 T he FCC’s authorities to issue rules encouraging broadcast ownership diversity stem from the following provisions:
§309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, specifies that in awarding licenses and permits via
competitive bidding, one of the FCC’s objectives must be promoting opportunities for, among others, “ businesses
owned by members of minority groups and women.” §309(j)(4)(D) of the Communications Act directs the FCC to
“ensure that small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and
women are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum -based services, and, for such purposes,
consider the use of tax certificates, bidding preferences, and other procedures.”
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 32 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Examples of the FCC’s attempts are described within several of its past media ownership
reviews, including the adoption of the Failed Station Solicitation Rule154 and the establishment of
a class of “eligible entities” that could qualify for relaxed ownership rules, attribution rules, and
more flexible licensing policies than their counterparts.155
Due in part to this history, and appeals of previous FCC actions imposing rules to foster diversity
of broadcast ownership, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the FCC’s efforts to foster
diversity of broadcast station ownership.156 In 2016, the FCC adopted a new order (2016
Diversity Order) containing rules designed to increase broadcast ownership diversity.157 In
response to a petition for review, the Third Circuit reviewed the FCC’s 2016 Diversity Order.158
Revenue-Based Eligible Entity Standard
In its 2016 Diversity Order, the FCC reinstated the revenue-based eligible entity standard, using
the Smal Business Administration’s definition of a “smal business.” The FCC had also used this
revenue-based eligible entity standard in its previous 2008 ownership diversity rulemaking (2008
Diversity Order).159 Under this definition, entities that own broadcast stations and have total
annual revenue of $38.5 mil ion or less qualify for certain construction, licensing, transaction, and
auction measures, described below.160
Measures Specific to Small Businesses
The FCC adopted six measures in the 2016 Diversity Order that are designed to enable eligible
entities to abide by less restrictive media ownership and attribution rules, and more flexible
licensing policies, than their counterparts.161 Table 4 describes the six measures.

154 1999 Media Ownership R&O, p. 12937.
155 Federal Communications Commission, “2002 Biennial Review Order, FCC 03 -127,” 18 FCC Record 13620, 13810-
13812, July 2, 2003; Federal Communications Commission, “Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the
Broadcasting Services, Report and Order and T hird Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07 -217,” 23 FCC
Record 5922, 5927, March 5, 2008 (2008 Diversity Order).
156 T he FCC issued an order creating rules intended to foster diversity of ownership in 2008. Promoting Diversification
of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, 2008 Diversity Order. T he order was appealed and reviewed by the Court
of Appeals for the T hird Circuit. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC ( Prom etheus II), 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011). After
reviewing the order, the T hird Circuit remanded parts of the 2008 Diversity Order to the FCC for reconsideration in
light of the court’s analysis. Ibid. at 438. Five years later, the T hird Circuit, noting the FCC’s failure to act on its
remand of the 2008 Diversity Order, concluded the FCC had unreasonably delayed action, ordered the agency to “ act
promptly” and retained jurisdiction over the issues it remanded to the agency. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC
(Prom etheus III), 824 F.3d 33, 37 (3d Cir. 2016).
157 See, generally, 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O.
158 Prometheus III, 824 F.3d at 37.
159 T he T hird Circuit Court of Appeals previously struck down a revenue-based eligible entity definition contained in
the FCC’s 2008 Diversity Order, finding that the agency had failed to explain how the definition would increase
broadcast ownership by minorities and women. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F. 3d 431, 469 -71 (3d Cir.
2011). In adopting the same definition in its 2016 Order, the FCC did not argue that the standard would increase
minority and female ownership, but, instead, found that the def inition would increase ownership diversity overall. 2014
Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9979-9882.
160 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9979-9984. T he FCC stated that it would require the eligible entity meet
one of three control tests to ensure that ultimate control over the licenses rests with it. Each of these three tests requires
that more than 50% of the voting stock rest with the corporation or partnership that will hold the broadcast license.
161 As directed by the T hird Circuit in Prometheus II, the FCC discussed additional proposals set forth by commenters
in the 2010 Diversity proceeding. T he commission declined to adopt them.
Congressional Research Service

27

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Table 4. Measures Applying to Eligible Entities
FCC’s Measures to Enhance Broadcast Ownership Diversity
Name of Measure
Description of Measure
Revision of Rules Regarding Revision of construction permit rules to al ow the sale of an expiring construction
Construction Permit
permit to an eligible entity that pledges to build out the permit within the time
Deadlines
remaining in the original construction permit or within 18 months, whichever
period is greater.
Modification of Attribution
Relaxation of the equity/debt plus (EDP) attribution standard for interest holders in
Rule
eligible entities by al owing the holder of an equity or debt interest in a media outlet
subject to the media ownership rules to exceed the 33% threshold set forth in [the
EDP standard] without triggering attribution where such investment would enable
an eligible entity to acquire a broadcast station provided
(1) the combined equity and debt of the interest holder in the eligible entity is
less than 50%, or
(2) the total debt of the interest holder in the eligible entity does not exceed
80% of the asset value of the station being acquired by the eligible entity and
the interest holder does not hold any equity interest, option, or promise to
acquire an equity interest in the eligible entity or any related entity.
Modification of Distress
Modification of the distress sale policy by al owing a licensee that has been
Sale Policy
designated for a revocation hearing or has a renewal application that has been
designated for hearing on basic qualification issues to sel the station to an eligible
entity prior to the hearing.
Duopoly Priority for
Giving an applicant for a duopoly that agrees to finance or incubate an eligible entity
Companies That Finance or priority over other applicants in the event that competing duopoly applications
Incubate an Eligible Entity
simultaneously are filed in the same market.
Extension of Divestiture
Consideration of requests to extend divestiture deadlines when applicants actively
Deadline in Certain
have solicited bids for divested properties from eligible entities. Entities granted
Mergers
such an extension must sel the divested property to an eligible entity by the
extended deadline or have the property placed in an irrevocable trust for sale by an
independent trustee to an eligible entity.
Assignment or Transfer of
Permitting the assignment or transfer of a grandfathered radio station combination
Grandfathered Radio
intact to any buyer so long as the buyer files an application to assign the excess
Station Combinations
stations to an eligible entity or to an irrevocable divestiture trust for the ultimate
assignment to an eligible entity within 12 months after consummation of the
purchase of the grandfathered stations.
Source: 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9866, 9982-9983, notes 857-862.
Similar to the reinstated definition of eligible entities, these measures are the same as those
previously adopted in the FCC’s 2008 Diversity Order.162 To justify this decision, the FCC
reasoned that “we continue to believe that enabling more smal businesses to participate in the
broadcast industry wil encourage innovation and promote competition and viewpoint
diversity.”163 It added that whether or not such measures would specifical y lead to increased
broadcast ownership by women and minorities has no bearing on whether the measures wil
promote smal business participation in the broadcast industry. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld
the 2016 Diversity Order in 2021.164

162 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, pp. 9866, 9982-9983, nn. 857-862.
163 2014 Quadrennial Review 2nd R&O, p. 9979.
164 FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150, 1160 n. 4 (2021).
Congressional Research Service

28

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Incubator Program
As part of its reconsideration of the Quadrennial Media Ownership order in 2017, the FCC
established a new incubator program that provides a waiver of its broadcast radio ownership rules
to a broadcaster that establishes a program to facilitate station ownership by a certain category of
owners. In addition, the FCC launched a new rulemaking proceeding seeking comment on how to
implement the program. The FCC issued rules governing the incubator program in August
2018.165 Most of the rules became effective on September 27, 2018.166
Under the incubator program, an established radio broadcaster wil provide financial and
operational support, including training and mentoring, to a new or smal radio broadcaster.167 At
the end of a successful incubation relationship, the new or smal broadcaster wil either own and
operate a new station independently, or be on a firmer financial footing. Once an incubation
relationship is completed successfully, the established broadcaster wil be eligible to receive a
waiver of the FCC’s Local Radio Ownership Rule, subject to certain requirements. In 2021, the
U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s establishment of the incubator program.168

165 Federal Communications Commission, “Rules and Policies to Promote New Entry and Ownership Diversity in the
Broadcasting Services, Report and Order, FCC 12 -114,” at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-establishes-incubator-
program-increase-broadcaster-diversity. (2018 Incubator R&O)
166 Federal Communications Commission, “Rules and Policies T o Promote New Entry and Ownership Diversity in the
Broadcasting Services, Final Rule, FCC 18-114,” 83 Federal Register 43773, August 28, 2018.
167 Federal Communications Commission, “FCC Establishes Incubator Program Procedures to Increase Diversity in the
Broadcast Industry,” press release, August 2, 2018, at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-establishes-incubator-
program-increase-broadcaster-diversity.
168 FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project , 141 S. Ct. 1150, 1160 n.4 (2021).
Congressional Research Service

29

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Appendix.
National Ownership Rule History
Table A-1. Chronology of National Broadcast Ownership and UHF Discount Rules
1941
FCC adopts national ownership ceiling of two broadcast television stations in its first
rules authorizing television broadcasting as a commercial service.
1948
FCC freezes the processing of applications for television construction permits. Only a
few television stations are operational, primarily in large and midsized cities.
1952
FCC revises Table of Television Al otments, assigning stations in the VHF band and the
newly created UHF band to various communities.
1954
FCC adopts national ownership ceiling of seven broadcast television stations, including a
maximum of five VHF stations. FCC states that encouraging group owners to own UHF
stations would promote development of UHF service.
1956
Supreme Court upholds FCC’s national ownership limits, finding them compatible with
Communications Act and FCC’s mandate to regulate broadcasting in the interest of the
public. Holds that FCC can revisit the rules if time and circumstances reveal that they do
not serve the public interest. [United States v. Storer Broadcasting Company, 351 U.S. 192]
1968
FCC adopts “top 50” policy, requiring licensees seeking to acquire a fourth television
station or a third VHF station in the top 50 markets to make a “compel ing public interest
showing” that the presumed benefits would overcome the presumed detriment arising
from the reduced number of information sources.
1979
FCC eliminates “top 50” policy, finding that the feared trend toward additional ownership
concentration had not occurred.
1985
FCC raises TV ownership cap to 12 stations and 25% of national audience. For purposes
of national audience calculation, FCC discounts reach of UHF stations by 50%.
1996
Congress enacts Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104-104. Act directs FCC to
review its media ownership rules every two years and determine whether are “necessary
in the public interest as a result of competition.” Act directs the FCC to modify its
national TV ownership cap to 35% of national audience and eliminate 12-station cap.
2000
FCC retains 35% ownership cap and UHF discount.
2002
U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, holds that the FCC’s “wait and see” attitude
regarding the effect of the 35% ownership cap was impermissible, given Congress’s
direction to evaluate whether the rules were “necessary in the public interest as a result
of competition.” It directs the FCC to justify the rule. [Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal
Communications Commission, 350 U.S. App. 79, 280 F.3d 1027 (D.C. 2002) ("Fox I”),
modified on reh'g, 352 U.S. App. 260, 293 F.3d 537 (D.C. 2002) ("Fox II")]
2003
FCC raises national TV ownership cap to 45% and retains UHF discount, concluding it is
necessary to promote entry and competition among broadcast networks. FCC says it wil
phase out the UHF discount for stations owned and operated by the top four broadcast
networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC) as the broadcast industry’s transition from analog
to digital technology is completed on a market-by-market basis.
Congressional Research Service

30

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

2004
Congress enacts the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199), which
directs the FCC to increase its national TV ownership cap to 39% of national audience,
thereby preempting FCC’s rule that would have raised the cap to 45%. The act also
directs the FCC to review its media ownership rules every four years (instead of every
two years), exempting rules related to the ownership cap from the review.
U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, finds that new law makes chal enges to the FCC’s UHF
discount moot. Court finds that barring congressional intervention, the FCC may decide
the scope of its authority to modify or eliminate the UHF discount outside the context of
its quadrennial media ownership review. Prometheus Radio Project vs. Federal
Communications Commission, 373 F. 3d 372, 396-397 (3rd Cir. 2004).
2009
Ful -power broadcast stations complete the congressional y mandated transition from
analog to digital transmissions. [47 U.S.C. §309(j)(14)(A)]
2013
FCC proposes elimination of UHF discount.
2016
FCC eliminates UHF discount, concluding technological change has eliminated the
justification for retaining it. FCC grandfathers combinations in existence on or proposed
in applications before September 26, 2013. Any such grandfathered combination assigned
or transferred to another broadcast television licensee must comply with the FCC’s
national ownership cap in existence at the time of the transaction. Rules set to become
effective November 23, 2016 (30 days after publication in the Federal Register).
Broadcast station group owners (ION Media Networks Inc. and Trinity Christian Center
of Santa Ana Inc.) file petition for reconsideration with FCC.
2017
FCC reinstates UHF discount. FCC states it wil launch a comprehensive rulemaking to
determine whether to retain the UHF discount in conjunction with a review of the
national ownership cap.
FCC launches new rulemaking proceeding to examine whether to modify or rescind the
UHF discount and national ownership cap.
Sources: Federal Communications Commission, “Multiple Ownership of AM, FM, and Television Broadcast
Stations, Proposed Rule,” 48 Federal Register 49438-49441, October 25, 1983; Herbert Howard, “Multiple
Broadcast Ownership: Regulatory History,” Federal Communications Bar Journal, vol. 27, no. 1 (1974), pp. 1-70;
Federal Communications Commission, “2002 Biennial Review Order—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast
Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” 418 FCC Record 13620, 13814, 13845-13847, July 2,
2003; Prometheus Radio Project vs. Federal Communications Commission, 373 F. 3d 372 (3rd Cir. 2004); Fox Television
Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 350 U.S. App. 79 (D.C. 2002); Federal Communications
Commission, “National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, Final Rule,” 81 Federal Register 73035, October 24,
2016; Federal Communications Commission, “Amendment of Section 73.355 5(e) of the Commission’s Rules,
National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, Order on Reconsideration,” 32 FCC Record 3390, April 21, 2017;
Federal Communications Commission, “Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission ’s Rules, National
Television Multiple Ownership Rule, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17-169,” 32 FCC Record 10785,
December 18, 2017.

Author Information

Dana A. Scherer

Specialist in Telecommunications Policy

Congressional Research Service

31

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45338 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
32

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jun. 1, 2021

HTML · PDF

27% changed

Oct. 9, 2018

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Internet and Telecommunications Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com

Raw Metadata: JSON