For nearly a century, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has upheld its mandate to ensure competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity in American media. From radio to broadcast television, the FCC’s ownership rules were designed to prevent monopolistic consolidation, empower local stations, and preserve the public interest. But in the age of digital streaming, these once-visionary rules now work against their original purpose. Today, it’s not just time to review the rules; it’s time to modernize them.
Traditional broadcasters are bound by outdated ownership limits such as the 39% national audience reach cap, that prevent mergers or consolidation within a given market, while their internet-based streaming competitors like Amazon Prime, Disney+, and Netflix operate unregulated and unfettered, and are increasingly dominating the landscape with 100% coverage. This causes a distorted media landscape where local broadcasters face regulatory barriers that their online competitors can bypass despite competing for the same viewers, advertisers, and cultural influence.
Consider the FCC’s longstanding “Top Four” rule, which prohibits one company from owning two of the top four television stations in a single designated market area (DMA). This archaic rule was meant to protect local diversity of discourse, but it has become a straitjacket in an era where viewership has migrated online. The FCC recently issued a rare waiver to allow a single broadcaster to carry both CBS and NBC affiliations in the Cheyenne-Scottsbluff market, thereby making a tacit admission that strict adherence to old rules no longer serves the public interest.
However, regulating by exception procedures underscores a larger problem: zero utility exists in forcing broadcasters to jump through hoops that no longer reflect the realities of modern media consumption. Millions of Americans now consume content primarily through digital platforms, not over-the-air signals or cable subscriptions, yet only traditional broadcasters are shackled by ownership caps, localism mandates, and regulatory red tape.
Unlike satellite, cable, and broadcast TV, streaming isn’t regulated by the FCC and faces no such constraints. They are classified as “online video distributors,” not “multi-channel video programming distributors,” and thus escape the FCC’s oversight. This loophole allows a handful of powerful players to grow larger and more monopolistic, often while avoiding even the most basic public interest obligations. Companies like Disney can dominate both traditional and digital platforms, exerting extraordinary influence over content without meaningful competition from smaller streaming challengers or local broadcasters.
The result is a system that favors consolidation not among vulnerable local outlets, but rather among already-massive tech and media conglomerates. If a regional broadcaster wants to merge or pool resources to stay afloat, the FCC applies outdated regulations to kill the effort. But if Amazon wants to buy MGM Studios or Disney wants to absorb another streaming competitor like Hulu or FuboTV, the FCC has no say. This asymmetry undermines competition instead of protecting it.
To correct this, the FCC should take two bold steps. First, it must modernize its ownership rules to allow traditional broadcasters greater flexibility to consolidate and compete. This does not mean unchecked mergers, but rather smart, targeted reforms that reflect economic realities. Local stations need the ability to scale, pool capital, and share infrastructure, particularly in rural or low-population markets where the cost of operations is high and advertising revenue is shrinking.
Second, the FCC must reexamine how it classifies and regulates streaming platforms. In 2014, former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed reclassifying streaming platforms as “MVPDs” (multichannel video programming distributors), placing them on equal regulatory footing with cable and satellite operators. Though the proposal failed, it was the right idea and deserves a second look.
To regulate fairly, the FCC must adopt a technology-neutral approach. If a service provides multiple linear streams of video programming (as do, for example, cable companies), then it should be treated like a cable company. That includes being subject to ownership limits, content obligations, and transparency rules. The Communications Act’s definition of a “channel” must be expanded from covering spectrum to encompass digital distribution. If it walks and talks like a broadcaster, it should be regulated like one.
Critics will argue this approach risks stifling innovation or encroaching on First Amendment rights, but the opposite is true. Today’s patchwork of regulation favors the largest, most entrenched, and least regulated players, who are already restricting viewpoint diversity by controlling what content reaches the public. In fact, their greatest competitive advantage comes not from offering a better product or service but rather from simply dodging regulation. Leveling the playing field would empower smaller competitors, be they local stations or independent streamers, to survive and thrive.
We also cannot ignore the implications for broader political discourse. During the 2024 election, concerns emerged about unequal airtime and political favoritism in media coverage. Traditional broadcasters are bound by fairness rules, but streaming platforms are not. As more political messaging moves online, the lack of regulatory parity will only deepen the gap in accountability.
The solution that will best serve the American people is not to impose broadcast-era rules on new technology. It’s to bring the regulatory framework into the 21st century by modernizing our rules, treating similar services similarly, empowering competition, and keeping our media ecosystem open and resilient. The FCC has already shown it can be flexible when the situation demands it. Now is the time for a full recalibration.
Modernizing FCC ownership rules and restoring balance in the digital media landscape is not just good policy; it is essential for the future of local news, competitive media markets, and the public’s access to diverse, trustworthy information.
Nathan A. Simington is a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
Gavin M. Wax is Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to Commissioner Simington and the co-author of ‘The Emerging Populist Majority’.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
