Something shocking and disturbing recently occurred at the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). What happened is getting relatively little attention from the news media (whom we presume are swamped covering all kinds of other bad news). We closely monitor activities at the FCC because we represent the musicFIRST Coalition and Future of Music Coalition* before the FCC in matters related to media ownership regulations and competition between audio delivery platforms.
The FCC is now run by Chairman Brendan Carr, who was appointed to the chairmanship by the current inhabitant of the Oval Office. On March 12, 2025, the FCC opened a new docket, “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete,” named with snark and disrespect of the FCC’s statutorily mandated adherence to practices that promote the public interest in diversity, competition and localism. The short description of the docket is, verbatim: “The FCC has opened a new docket in which the agency seeks comment on every rule, regulation, or guidance document that the FCC should eliminate for the purposes of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.” The FCC’s press release on the subject has the headline: “FCC Chairman Carr Launches Massive Deregulation Initiative.”
The Public Notice seeks “public input on identifying FCC rules for the purpose of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens. We seek comment on deregulatory initiatives that would facilitate and encourage American firms’ investment in modernizing their networks, developing infrastructure, and offering innovative and advanced capabilities.” The Public Notice then makes the following patently false statement as guidance to public commenters:
“The Communications Act directs the FCC to regularly review its rules to identify and eliminate those that are unnecessary in light of current circumstances, recognizing that in addition to imposing unnecessary burdens, unnecessary rules may stand in the way of deployment, expansion, competition, and technological innovation in communications that the Commission is directed to advance. Government-wide administrative law requires review of rules to ensure that unnecessary—or affirmatively detrimental—rules are not retained.” **
This paragraph above is false and deceptive.
We have worked before the FCC since 2019 and have never seen such contempt for regulating broadcast and telecommunications in the public interest. We usually just report the news rather than write opinion pieces, but we can’t sit back and act like things are normal with respect to this overly broad and potentially catastrophic docket. Things are not normal. For example, Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, with whom we agree on matters related to media ownership regulation, just announced that he is resigning from the FCC effective this Spring. Meanwhile, per the New York Times, Chairman Carr "has waded into the politicized debate over NPR and PBS, ordering up an investigation that he said could be relevant in lawmakers’ decision about whether to continue funding the public news organizations."
Comments from members of the public in this "In Re: Delete, Delete. Delete" docket are due April 11, 2025. Reply comments (i.e. responses praising or criticizing initial comments by other parties) from the public are due April 28, 2025. Comments and reply comments do not have to be formal and written by a lawyer. They can be one-page letters, or even just a few paragraphs long.
One might ask what difference would comments by the public make if the current FCC Chairman, who is expected to soon have a majority of the five Commissioners on his side, is hell-bent on drastic deregulation regardless of what the public thinks about the matter? The answer is: Comments and Reply Comments mean A LOT. That's because FCC decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny, and any decisions by the agency that ignore comments by the public are in danger of being reversed in the courts on the basis that such decisions are "arbitrary and capricious." Any court scrutinizing drastically deregulatory moves by Carr's FCC must look at the record of comments and reply comments when determining whether the agency's actions are worthy of deference or are, instead, so arbitrary and capricious as to warrant a remand. We can expect the National Association of Broadcasters and deep-pocketed media conglomerates who like monopolies to comment about how great local media monopolies are for local communities (we are not making this up). However, you as a member of the public have an opportunity to make sure that such falsehoods get refuted by listeners of music on audio platforms including local radio stations.
Our recommendation for anyone interested in sending a short comment or reply comment to the FCC is to contact Rachel at rachel@rmslawoffices.com to hear more about the easy process of filing a custom comment or reply comment that states that you are against eliminating or loosening current limits on ownership of commercial FM radio stations and commercial TV stations at local market levels. Another way of making your voice heard: Around the third week of April, my client, the musicFIRST Coalition, will make available to members of the public a special "widget" on its website that will allow interested parties to file an auto-generated express comment to the FCC about keeping monopolies out of commercial FM radio at local market levels. Using a widget to generate an automated express comment is a super easy and quick process!
Keeping current limits on commercial FM ownership is necessary in the public interest to preserve what is left of viewpoint diversity, ownership diversity, localism, and competition between local broadcasters. Eliminating current media ownership limits would literally allow monopolies on all commercial radio and TV stations in every market in the United States. We will be drafting comments and reply comments in this docket on behalf of the musicFIRST Coalition and Future of Music Coalition. Those comments will refute the broadcaster's lobby, who purport to represent all broadcasters, but instead really represent only those conglomerates that want to own clusters of commercial radio stations that are maxed out under current reasonable ownership regulations.
*The musicFIRST Coalition is comprised of SoundExchange, the Recording Academy, the Latin Recording Academy, American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), R.I.A.A., SAG-AFTRA, American Federation of Musicians, the Music Managers’ Forum, Christian Music Trade Association, Rhythm & Blues Foundation, the Vocal Group, and the Society of Singers. The Future of Music Coalition is a nonprofit music advocacy think tank.
** For nerds: This statement appears to refer to Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the law that eviscerated prior limitations on the number of commercial radio and television stations that one entity can own nationwide. The Telecommunications Act kept certain limits on the number of commercial radio and TV stations that one entity can own in a given geographic marketplace. Brendan Carr wants to eliminate these remaining media ownership regulations, as well as any other regulations that restrict big telecommunications and wireless businesses’ ability to make unbridled profits, regardless of the effect of such deregulation by the FCC. Rachel recently coauthored an Amicus Brief, with fellow public interest broadcast attorney Cheryl Leanza, in a separate case before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that argues that Section 202(h) is not presumptively deregulatory.
