Thread

Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

166 points · 112 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.
    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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.