As technology and consumer preferences continue to evolve, broadcasting companies remain hampered by anachronistic regulations. Players in the traditional media space are calling out for a restructuring of the regulatory framework, so they are not disadvantaged in the competition with modern streaming services. Will the Federal Communications Commission listen?
Since the early 20th century, TV and radio broadcasts have traveled through airwaves via a range of electromagnetic frequencies used for wireless communication known as radio spectrum. This is traditional broadcasting.[1]
In the early 21st century, the internet revolutionized the way we consume content forever by creating a whole new modality of viewing on subscription-based platforms. This is the streaming era.
Today, we live in a world where both broadcasting and streaming operate in a dual reality. This benefits viewers, who have greater choice in forming and selecting their viewing preferences. In this bilateral marketplace, broadcasting and streaming companies run up against one another in the race to capture the broadest audience possible. The competition is fierce, and broadcasting’s inherent anachronism puts it at a major disadvantage. In the last few weeks, policymakers finally mobilized efforts aimed at removing some of the obstacles hampering broadcasting companies in the modern marketplace.[2]
The world in which we view content today looks – and is – vastly different from what it was 50 years ago. For instance, high-quality internet is available to nearly every American, reaching 95% of US Households according to FCC data.[3] With this level of access and other streaming benefits, most people enjoy consuming content via online platforms such as Netflix, YouTube, or Instagram. Why watch a show live when you can watch the highlights later on TikTok? It’s an on-demand, clip-culture paradise.
And yet, broadcast regulation is “predicated on the opposite assumption that broadcasting is a uniquely powerful and central medium that must be constrained and controlled in the ‘public interest’”?[4] The reality is, consumer interests have changed. So must the broadcasting world.
These changes must begin with the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”): an independent US government agency responsible for regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 States.[5] The FCC is the primary authority on communications law, regulation, and technological innovation.[6] In other words, the FCC is a primary driver in shaping the broadcasting marketplace.
While the streaming industry is sophisticated in its practices and regulations, the structure of the broadcasting market, in comparison, is mired in anachronistic regulations. Market data suggests that streaming accounts for 46% of household television viewing time, compared to Broadcasting’s 19% share.[7]Streaming already offers a superior viewer experience in almost every category: there are infinitely more choices, it’s on demand, it’s personalized, and it’s interactive. Streaming is even beginning to offer the one thing broadcasting still dominates: programs of mass simultaneous viewing – like the Super Bowl or Academy Awards.[8] With the superiority of streaming, Broadcasting is already struggling to compete. If broadcasting is to survive at all in the modern world, its ecosystem must evolve. At a minimum, the legal framework must become modern too.
Eric Fruits of The International Center for Law and Economics describes in his recent article how the FCC’s current regulations “were designed for a bygone era of information scarcity and are wholly unsuited to the modern competitive landscape. Applying them today would be like requiring a new electric-vehicle manufacturer to install tailpipes on their EVs.”[9]
Following a notice recently issued by the FCC,[10] Fruits outlines a wonderfully imaginative and spot-on set of inquiries: “Imagine a world where over-the-air broadcasting technology […] was invented not in the early 20th century, but today. […] Would policymakers conclude that this new technology required a sweeping reallocation of radio spectrum, pulling it away from 5G mobile networks and Wi-Fi? Would they impose caps on how many of these new broadcast stations one company could own? Would they mandate that existing distributors like cable or satellite companies—or internet providers or streaming services—must carry these new signals?”[11]
In Fruits’ view, the answer is “almost certainly no.”[12] As of September 30, 2025, the FCC seems to be embracing a similar answer.[13]
Every four years, the FCC is mandated by Congress to conduct a review of its regulatory system to determine if, despite any changes in the marketplace, existing regulations are still necessary to the public interest.[14] On September 30, 2025, as part of its quadrennial review, the FCC pressed forward with a proposal to ease restrictions on control of ownership in the broadcasting marketplace.[15]
There are three local ownership rules on the table for FCC revision. The FCC is currently considering: (1) increasing the total number of radio stations that may be commonly owned in a local market, (2) easing a restriction against one entity owning more than two TV stations in the same area, and (3) dropping the dual network rule that restricts mergers among ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox.[16]
In the reality posed by Eric Fruits in his hypothetical inquiry, Fruits posits a regulatory scheme in which:[17] (1) “we would not allocate vast amounts of high-value spectrum to broadcasting at no charge,” rather, “broadcasters would acquire spectrum in competitive auctions if they could use it to its highest value;” (2) “we would not impose arbitrary ownership caps or vague public-interest obligations,” rather, “broadcasters would be free to structure their businesses and achieve scale, governed by general antitrust principles;” and (3) “we would not create a complex and coercive carriage regime like must carry and retransmission consent,” rather, “their relationships with distributors would be based on voluntary contracts.”[18]
In essence, Fruits would suggest treating broadcasting like any other technology for content distribution. But these are not the only considerations imperative to the FCC’s decision. Fruits’ commentary makes a lot of sense from an economic perspective. But what about the legal perspective?
Ownership caps may be “arbitrary,” as Fruits says, in that they are prescribed by the FCC and not determined by natural marketplace supply and demand curves.[19] However, as economic principles will explain, removing such caps will invariably result in high competition driving out smaller, weaker players in the market. For example, if the FCC drops the current dual network rule that restricts mergers among ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, it is almost inevitable that mergers among these players will occur. Just look at what’s happening across media companies outside the broadcasting world.[20]
With stronger broadcasting companies absorbing larger shares of the market, there will exist fewer platforms and thus, perspectives. The ‘marketplace of ideas” that the First Amendment and Constitution guard over with such resolution will shrink.[21] This is exactly why the FCC established the existing ownership caps in the first place: it aligns with their mission to preserve local viewpoints and protect public interest.[22]
In formulating regulations, the FCC built on antitrust laws, like the Clayton Act and Sherman Act, which align closely with First Amendment and Constitutional considerations.[23] “Antitrust laws are designed to boost competition by forbidding monopolies and similar concentrations of business ownership, as well as practices such as price fixing that are associated with them.”[24]
However, in today’s world, broadcasting regulations on ownership and control are no longer boosting positive competition– they are inhibiting it.[25] The world has changed dramatically with the advent of modern technology, and what made sense in the past is now merely a fiction. The FCC must deal with the reality, which is this: Streaming dominates the market of content consumption. Broadcasting regulations must evolve with the times, or this traditional mode of programming will not survive at all.
Fortunately, the FCC’s latest quadrennial review shows positive signs that restructuring is on the horizon, and broadcasting may live to see another day. If the FCC truly values “public interest” as they claim to, they will take action to ensure it does.
[1] Douglas Gomery, Radio and television physics, EBSCO (2022), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/communication-and-mass-media/radio-and-television-physics.
[2] David Oxenford, FCC Begins Quadrennial Review of its Local Ownership Rules for Radio and TV – Should the FCC Relax Broadcast Ownership Rules Based on Competitive Factors?, Broadcast Law Blog (Sept. 11, 2025),https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2025/09/articles/fcc-begins-quadrennial-review-of-its-local-ownership-rules-for-radio-and-tv-should-the-fcc-relax-broadcast-ownership-rules-based-on-competitive-factors/.
[3] Jean Kiddoo, Broadband Data Collection Shows Access to High-Speed Internet Services is Expanding!, FCC Blog (May 20, 2025),
[4] Eric Fruits, A Clean Slate Approach to Broad Cast Regulation, Internation Center for Law & Economics (Oct. 13, 2025), https://truthonthemarket.com/2025/10/02/a-clean-slate-approach-to-broadcast-regulation/?_gl=1*1h52z1k*_ga*MTU3MzQxODA3OC4xNzU5NjkwMjIz*_ga_R1FRMJTK15*czE3NjE0MDkxMjgkbzQkZzEkdDE3NjE0MDkxODEkajckbDAkaDA.
[5] About the FCC: What We Do, Federal Communications Commission (last visited Oc.t 25, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do.
[6] Id.
[7] Fruits, supra note 4.
[8] Streaming the game: How the rise of digital platforms is changing sports consumption, pwc Technology, media and telecommunications publications (last visited Oct. 25, 2025),
[9] Fruits, supra note 4.
[10] Fed. Commc’n Comm’n, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2025).
[11] Fruits, supra note 4.
[12] Id.
[13] September 2025 Open Commission Meeting, FCC Events (Sept. 30, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/September2025.
[14] Oxenford, supra note 2.
[15] Christopher Cole, FCC Embarks on Four-Year Media Ownership Review, LAW360 (Sept. 30, 2025), https://www.law360.com/articles/2394174/fcc-embarks-on-four-year-media-ownership-review.
[16] Christopher Cole, ‘Clean Slate’ For Broadcast Rules Needed, Think Tank Says, LAW360 (Oct. 3, 2025), https://www.law360.com/media/articles/2395829/-clean-slate-for-broadcast-rules-needed-think-tank-says?copied=1Current.
[17] Fruits, supra note 4.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Daniel Punt, Resurgence of Media & Entertainment M&A in 2024, FTI Consulting (July 26, 2024), https://www.fticonsulting.com/insights/articles/resurgence-media-entertainment-ma-2024.
[21] Media Ownership Rules and Antitrust Laws, JUSTIA (last updated July 2025), https://www.justia.com/communications-internet/media-ownership-rules-and-antitrust-laws/.
[22] About the FCC: The Public and Broadcasting, Federal Communications Commission (last visited Oct. 25, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting.
[23] JUSTIA, supra at 21.
[24] Id.
[25] Alex Siciliano, It’s Time for the FCC to Eliminate its Arbitrary National Broadcast Ownership Cap, National Association of Broadcasters (last updated April 2, 2025), https://www.blog.nab.org/2025/04/02/its-time-for-the-fcc-to-eliminate-its-arbitrary-national-broadcast-ownership-cap/; Fruits, supra note 4.