Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Preventing and Reversing FCC Interference in Telecom and Media: An Agenda for Policymakers

by January 7, 2025
January 7, 2025
Preventing and Reversing FCC Interference in Telecom and Media: An Agenda for Policymakers

Brent Skorup

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been covertly and overtly regulating media content and media distributors since the agency was created in 1934. Namely, broadcast licenses and media mergers—like transactions involving satellite and Internet access companies—have been contested and litigated. There’s no escaping that media distribution and operation is political, and, ideally, Congress would eliminate some of its unclear media laws. 

In the meantime, incoming FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and the other commissioners have some authority to minimize the secret government pressure on media companies and protect the free speech norms that Americans value. 

Eliminate the News Distortion Rule and Other Legacy Content Rules for Media 

Broadcasters today have largely learned to live with their content restrictions but the FCC should eliminate its legacy content rules. One priority should be to eliminate the news distortion rule. Uncodified and largely overlooked, the FCC rule against news distortion threatens a broadcaster’s ability to renew or transfer its license if the licensee is deemed to have deliberately engaged in news distortion, staging, or slanting. The FCC reaffirmed its commitment to enforce the news distortion rule several times, including in the summer of 2024. 

There’s a precedent for refusing to enforce speech-chilling rules. The FCC formulated and enforced the notorious Fairness Doctrine from 1949 until the 1980s. But in 1985, the FCC voted 4–0 to not enforce the rule against a station, in part because of First Amendment concerns. The Fairness Doctrine slowly withered away after being weaponized and enforced for decades. 

Stop Coercing Media Companies During Media and Telecom Mergers 

Media and telecom companies must get the agency’s “public interest” blessing before a merger can be completed. This requirement for FCC permission and the agency’s vague, multifactor “public interest” standard gives the agency immense power over merging companies. As my friend and former FCC associate general counsel, Randy May, explains: 

The Commission merely withholds approval of the merger until the parties come forward to propose conditions which the Commission has telegraphed in closed door negotiations that it would find acceptable to meet whatever public interest concerns that opponents, the FCC, and others have raised. 

Through this coercive merger process, the FCC extracts nominally voluntary concessions from firms—including programming decisions and “net neutrality” compliance. In many cases, the FCC is legally barred from codifying or is unwilling to codify these policies through the normal regulatory process. To prevent these secretive negotiations, Chairman Carr should prohibit the agency and its staff from considering content and routine business decisions in its “public interest” determinations when approving telecom and media transactions. 

Bring Economic Rigor to the Public Interest Standard

The “public interest” standard litters the Communications Act. Unfortunately, its meaning is constantly changing and depends entirely on who sits on the commission. Agency decisions become lengthy and protracted as parties typically hire all kinds of experts, lobbyists, and researchers to show why their application serves the public interest. The FCC should adopt a consistent definition for the “public interest.” 

The agency’s Office of Economics and Analytics should examine how to bring some rigor and consistency to the “public interest” definition. For instance, when evaluating competing applications for an asset, competitive bidding should have predominant weight in a “public interest” determination. In other contexts, parties should be expected to articulate and estimate the “consumer welfare” effects of an agency decision. 

The “consumer welfare standard,” while not perfect, is widely used in antitrust and economic literature and can bring far more economic rigor to currently chaotic and wasteful “public interest” determinations across the federal government. 

This blog is part of a series on technology innovation and free expression.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Mark Carney considers bid to replace Justin Trudeau in race for Canadian premiership
next post
Conservatives rejoice over ‘jaw dropping’ Meta censorship announcement: ‘Huge win for free speech’

You may also like

Dear Biden Administration: Please Do Not Take Health...

September 19, 2023

Naturalized Immigrants Probably Voted Republican in 2024

March 26, 2025

New Book Excerpt: False Dawn, The New Deal...

April 21, 2025

Copper Tariffs Are the New Steel Tariffs

July 16, 2025

Industrial Policy, Whether Republican or Democrat, is Anti-Liberty

January 3, 2025

Nuclear Power’s Newest Cautionary Tale

November 10, 2023

Joe Biden: Culture‐​Warrior‐​in‐​Chief

July 10, 2023

Learning from the Caribbean CBDC Experience

July 24, 2025

Can Bay Area Political Leaders Solve Climate Change?

August 11, 2023

Nine Examples of Waste in the New Markets...

August 6, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • National Wealth Fund commits £200m to UK battery storage push

      August 28, 2025
    • XRP price prediction hits new highs, GMO Miner helps you earn $6,800 a day

      August 28, 2025
    • West End retailers lose £310m from VAT-free shopping ban in first half of year

      August 28, 2025
    • Dollar slips as Trump moves to sack Fed governor Lisa Cook in unprecedented clash over central bank independence

      August 28, 2025
    • CDC Director Susan Monarez refuses to be fired as other officials call it quits

      August 28, 2025
    • Bill Gates met with Trump to talk ‘importance of US global health programs and health research’: spox

      August 28, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,901)
    • Investing (2,246)
    • Politics (16,503)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved