Thread

Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

163 points · 111 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. 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.
    jibal · 1786052790 · focus · HN ↗
    Congress already did something -- it wrote the law. It's the courts that rule against lawbreakers. However, it's the executive branch that takes action against lawbreakers, and that branch is currently utterly corrupt.
    throwaway27448 · 1786059879 · focus · HN ↗
    First, all three branches are obviously quite corrupt. Second, congress can obviously still avt to speak on behalf of us and they refuse to do so.
    jibal · 1786061208 · focus · HN ↗
    I explained the roles of the branches. This throwaway comment doesn't refute what I wrote. And the way Congress "speaks" on our behalf (that is, they are supposed to represent us) is through legislation.
    No way am I giving the GOP-controlled Congress a pass on its numerous failures to oppose corrupt appointments or to impeach corrupt officials, but that's not germane here ... an understanding of how the government works is, and clearly many people lack that.
    throwaway27448 · 1786061383 · focus · HN ↗
    I suppose I'm confused why you are speaking against congress acting further as your parent comment requests.
    Anyway, the "role" of various branches has been a mud wrestling match for centuries and I don't see why it would metastasize now.
    fnordpiglet · 1786111611 · focus · HN ↗
    The key is who has standing in such a case. Likely broadcasters are the ones most likely to be impacted. Also depending on how the statute is written markets with total monopoly could have standing, individuals to cities.
    It’s not just the executive branch who is able to sue in court. Everyone and every company can. But you have to demonstrate you suffered harm and are a legitimate plaintiff.
    For changes like this I suspect there’s a lot of people and companies with standing.
  2. rainsford · 1786058593 · focus · HN ↗
    That article seems pretty ironic considering the Baltimore Sun is controlled by the head of Sinclair, a group pursuing (partisan) media consolidation.
    Wowfunhappy · 1786058895 · focus · HN ↗
    ...are you criticizing them for having editorial independence?
    Supermancho · 1786068932 · focus · HN ↗
    How does this story demonstrate independence? It's covering an announcement.
    gopher_space · 1786073294 · focus · HN ↗
    And being good-looking? Are you criticizing them for being fit and handsome?
    stonogo · 1786077400 · focus · HN ↗
    This article is syndicated from The Epoch Times, a hard-right Falun Gong mouthpiece pretty well known for spreading conspiracy theories and extremely partisan reporting.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.