Thread

Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

72 points · 61 comments · pseudolus

ilovetux · 1786044540 · focus · HN ↗
Didn't the supreme court recently overturn the Chevron Doctrine?
Doesn't that mean agencies like this are not free to set their own rules when a law is ambiguous?
And isnt the cap on number of households reached actually codified unambiguously in federal law?
Seems to me like this should not be allowed to happen.
Let me know if I am wrong.
1. YeahThisIsMe · 1786045291 · focus · HN ↗
  Well, you see, under the current administration, everything is allowed.
2. curt15 · 1786045298 · focus · HN ↗
  > Doesn't that mean agencies like this are not free to set their own rules when a law is ambiguous?
  Agencies can say whatever they want but courts are not required to defer to them when this inevitably goes to a lawsuit.
  1. ilovetux · 1786049337 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks. That actually makes it make more sense, chevron doctrine applies to courts and what they can/can't do.
3. disposition2 · 1786045975 · focus · HN ↗
  If this Baltimore Sun article is accurate, it's worse than that as it sounds like the FCC is overriding a law passed by Congress and not just (re)setting a rule.
  > The 39% cap was established by Congress in 2004.
  1. <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communications-commission-rescinds-tv-ownership-rule-limiting-mergers/" rel="nofollow">https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communicatio...
  1. warkdarrior · 1786049104 · focus · HN ↗
    And what is this Congress going to do about it? Nothing.
4. Finnucane · 1786049190 · focus · HN ↗
  The law isn't ambiguous.
  1. ilovetux · 1786049407 · focus · HN ↗
    True, I tried to convey that.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.