Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#91

Post by pessimizer »

trollbridge wrote: post #7

Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today. In exchange, we have a great deal of spectrum tied up for terrestrial TV, much of which goes to running infomercials or else is surreptitiously leased for terrestrial data…

Wow, the people buying them up must be really stupid then. You should tell them.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#92

Post by rainsford »

disposition2 wrote: post #47
ilovetux wrote: post #34

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.

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. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communicatio...

That article seems pretty ironic considering the Baltimore Sun is controlled by the head of Sinclair, a group pursuing (partisan) media consolidation.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#93

Post by Wowfunhappy »

rainsford wrote: post #92
disposition2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communicatio...

That article seems pretty ironic considering the Baltimore Sun is controlled by the head of Sinclair, a group pursuing (partisan) media consolidation.

...are you criticizing them for having editorial independence?

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#95

Post by golem14 »

trollbridge wrote: post #7

Broadcast TV seems laughably irrelevant. It’s difficult to find official numbers, but under 1% of US households have no cable, satellite TV, home Internet, or a cell phone. The latter two are how people consume video and TV to a large degree today. In exchange, we have a great deal of spectrum tied up for terrestrial TV, much of which goes to running infomercials or else is surreptitiously leased for terrestrial data…

That's just step 1. In step 2, the argument goes: "See this is already allowed for broadcast tv. Streaming is no different, so we demand the same change there"... and so on.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#96

Post by throwaway27448 »

jibal wrote: post #77
warkdarrior wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what is this Congress going to do about it? Nothing.

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.

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.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#97

Post by conartist6 »

close04 wrote: post #72
kurthr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime is legal (if you're in the right group).

Is anyone else wondering if this is just a “cover crime” for the ragebait while the real crime was s happening behind the scenes, not getting any attention because this news is capturing all of it? They’re doing something so ridiculously obvious that it’s illegal so they can’t possibly think this is where they gain something. The gain must be somewhere else.

yes

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#98

Post by jibal »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #96
jibal wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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--including of course Carr--but that's not germane here ... an understanding of how the government works is, and clearly many people lack that.

Also, while the GOP is corrupt through and through, including the GOP-dominated SCOTUS, saying that the "branches" are is inaccurate -- the lower courts are still a bulwark against corruption. This simplistic throwaway handwaving in no way invalidates my entirely accurate comment about the roles of the branches. I won't waste more time commenting on this.

Re: Federal Communications Commission scraps limit on broadcast TV ownership

#100

Post by [deleted] »

jibal wrote: post #98
throwaway27448 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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--including of course Carr--but that's not germane here ... an understandin…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN