Some Thoughts on the Removal of Ownership Limitations and/or Sub-Caps.

The following is one man’s opinion, for what it’s worth.  Remember, opinions are like noses; virtually everybody has one.

Why Not Just Eliminate All Ownership Limitations and Be Done With It?

Since 1996 there has been a steady consolidation and squeeze-down of the number of ownership entities resulting in fewer and fewer owners controlling more and more stations. At the same time alternate forms of audio entertainment, many of which seek to emulate the radio broadcast experience, have grown exponentially.  So, my question: why not “cut to the chase”, as they say, and eliminate the ownership limits and the sub-cap restrictions altogether and let the marketplace decide who will survive and who will not?  Sort of a radio broadcast survival of the fittest?

The stated intention of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which changed the number of stations any one entity can own, was to “…let anyone enter any communications business – to let any communications business compete in any market against any other…”  In practice, it gave way to one of the largest consolidations of the telecommunications sector in history.

Contrary to the stated intentions of allowing more businesses to operate in the communications space, the actual result of the Act was a flurry of mergers and acquisitions as corporate media giants bought out small, local broadcasters thus diminishing the number of “voices” within the industry, enabling market concentration in the media and telecommunications industries, going against its very stated intention by indirectly restricting newcomer access to broadcasting.

So now comes the notion that the Commission needs again to reconsider the ownership limitations and in particular the sub-caps allowable:

Arguments for eliminating ownership limits

• Competitive scale against digital media: Broadcasters argue that companies like Spotify, Apple, and YouTube face no ownership restrictions. Larger radio clusters could pool resources, attract national ad buys, and compete more effectively.
• Struggling stations need buyers: In many markets, small or failing stations can’t find buyers because of FCC caps. Removing limits could allow stronger operators to acquire them, potentially preserving service.
• Efficiency and synergy: Consolidation can reduce overhead, streamline programming, and strengthen portfolios through swaps or mergers.
• Market-driven survival: Advocates believe the marketplace should decide winners and losers, not regulators. Deregulation could encourage innovation and investment.

Arguments against eliminating ownership limits

• Loss of localism and diversity: Fewer owners often mean fewer unique voices. Consolidation risks homogenized programming, less local news, and diminished community service.
• Employment impact: History after the 1996 Telecommunications Act shows consolidation led to job losses—newsrooms shrank, production staffs were cut, and automation replaced local talent.
• Barriers to new entrants: Larger groups could dominate markets, making it harder for independent or diverse owners to gain a foothold.
• Public interest concerns: The FCC’s mandate includes ensuring diversity and localism. Critics argue deregulation prioritizes corporate efficiency over community needs.

The Balancing Act

The FCC’s quadrennial reviews are meant to weigh whether ownership rules remain in the public interest. The current debate reflects two competing visions:

• Survival through scale (ownership groups, NAB, major broadcasters).
• Preservation of diversity and jobs (on-air talent, producers, community advocates).

A Personal Opinion (there’s that “O” word again):

I’m willing to bet that the public is not all that interested in the public interest unless that particular public interest is merged with their special interests. The notion of a diversity of local voices, in the long run, does not necessarily hold water. Programming genres notwithstanding, they all sound alike. Many stations only pay lip service to their issues and programming requirements relying on “all PSAs, all the time”, or syndicated services that deliver public service podcasts that the local stations can run and claim as their own.

The time has come to acknowledge the “Public Interest, Necessity, and Convenience” has pretty much become a bumper sticker slogan and the sanctity of “local voices” is pretty much a myth. My opinion:  if limits were abolished, consolidation would almost certainly spike, especially in large markets, and we will continue to see the demise of AM broadcasting.  The long-term question is whether radio would become more competitive—or simply less local, less diverse, and less populated.

A Reality Check:

My position—that diversity of voices is more myth than reality—reflects what many broadcasters may quietly acknowledge. The “public interest” argument often feels outdated when the public itself has migrated to platforms that don’t prioritize localism. Eliminating ownership limits would simply formalize what’s already happening: consolidation, homogenization, and survival of the strongest operators.

As in almost all “free market societies,” the marketplace paints the landscape. However, given the nature of governments, they will continue to try to control the narrative and utilization. Un-regulated or at least non-governmental agency regulated industries will be able to use technology, such as AI, to advance discovery and development beyond which the governmentally controlled entities will be capable. This will result in older technologies being somewhat left in the dust as they try to play catchup.

But to my initial question and proposition: rather than try to tweak and control and manipulate the industry into compliance with a notion that is no longer viable, why not just let the marketplace decide? It is already doing that.

The marketplace and pushes against the envelope by non-governmentally regulated media have made broadcasting somewhat creaky. The same is happening when it comes to an artificially limited ownership structure that in reality serves to limit choices rather than create more. If AM broadcasting is so important to society and is so deserving of front-facing placement on the dashboard, why are so many of those stations dying on the vine due to lack of listenership and advertising support? Will we see the day when AM broadcasters are supported by government? I think survival of the fittest will eventually dictate and I propose concurrently that applies to archaic ownership limitations.

The Marketplace Has Decided

• Audience migration: Listeners have shifted to streaming, podcasts, and satellite radio. AM/FM stations are losing relevance not because of ownership caps, but because consumer behavior has changed.
• Advertising collapse: Digital platforms now command an increasingly large portion of local ad revenue. Even if ownership limits were lifted, radio groups would still be fighting for scraps of a shrinking pie.
• Programming homogenization: The “diversity of voices” argument is undermined when most outlets rely on syndication or automation.

Why Government Still Intervenes

• Public interest mandate: The FCC is legally bound to promote diversity, localism, and competition. Even if those ideals feel outdated, they remain statutory obligations.
• Emergency communication: AM radio is still defended as a critical backbone for disaster alerts, rural coverage, and national security. That’s why proposals like the AM in Every Vehicle Act exist.  However, does anyone really believe that emergency services must rely on AM radio, a diminishing breed, for emergency support?  Are there not enough FM stations out there? 
• Political optics: Deregulation can be framed as “selling out communities” to corporate interests. Regulators often move cautiously to avoid backlash.

Should AM Be Subsidized?

• Maybe: If AM is deemed essential infrastructure (like rural broadband), government support could emerge—through subsidies, tax credits, or mandatory dashboard placement.
• Maybe not: Subsidizing a medium with declining listenership may be politically untenable. It risks being seen as propping up a dinosaur rather than investing in future-facing technologies.
• Likely outcome: Survival of the fittest. AM stations that can’t adapt (e.g., by streaming, niche programming, or leveraging digital hybrids) will fade, regardless of regulation.

The Big Picture

• The FCC’s rules are rooted in a 20th-century worldview where radio was the dominant medium. Today, the marketplace has already shifted the balance of power to unregulated digital platforms. Eliminating ownership limits would simply acknowledge reality: size matters more than symbolic diversity.
• But here’s the rub: government regulation often lags behind market reality. Even if the FCC knows the rules are outdated, it may hesitate to abandon them because they embody the public interest narrative, even if the public itself has moved on.
• If ever broadcasters are going to push for full deregulation, now is the time. With a Republican majority in all three branches this may be the best and last opportunity for a long time. Would that be successful? Probably not. With self-perpetuating government control, it is not likely the dominating bureaucracy will let that happen. It’s a good debate, though.

Why a Republican Majority Could Open the Door

• Ideological fit: Deregulation aligns with traditional Republican priorities—reducing government intervention, letting markets decide, and empowering industry consolidation.
• FCC leadership: With a majority in all three branches, appointments to the FCC would likely lean toward deregulation advocates, making rule changes more plausible.
• Industry lobbying: Broadcasters and the NAB would see this as their best chance to push for sweeping reform, framing it as necessary to compete with unregulated digital giants.

Why Success is Unlikely

• Institutional inertia: The FCC is a regulatory agency by design. Its staff and processes are built around enforcing rules, not dismantling them. Even with political pressure, the bureaucracy tends to move incrementally.
• Public interest narrative: Regulators still cling to diversity and localism as guiding principles. Abandoning them outright would be politically risky, even if the marketplace has already eroded their practical value.
• Judicial oversight: Courts often require the FCC to justify rule changes in terms of the public interest. Wholesale deregulation could be challenged as failing that standard.
• Industry division: Not all broadcasters agree. Smaller operators and community voices often oppose deregulation, fearing they’ll be swallowed by conglomerates.

Likely outcome

• Tweaks, not abolition: The FCC may relax sub-caps (e.g., AM/FM limits) or adjust ownership thresholds, but full elimination of rules is unlikely.
• Symbolic deregulation: Some rules may be loosened to signal responsiveness, while the core framework remains intact.
• Marketplace dominance anyway: Digital platforms already dictate survival. Even without FCC action, radio consolidation and attrition will continue.

That’s 30 for now, thank you for your consideration.

Not a subscriber? Click here for updates, posts, and new listings!

Click here to connect on LinkedIn!