Transcript: FCC August 2026 Open Commission Meeting — D2D satellite spectrum and media ownership

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerOkay. Good morning. Welcome to the August 2026 open meeting of the Federal Communications Commission. As is our tradition, if you'll please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thanks. With that, Madam Secretary, will you please introduce this morning's agenda? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and good morning, commissioners.

For today's meeting, you will hear four items for your consideration. First, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that would unleash unlicensed spectrum for direct to device. Second, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that maximizes efficiencies in universal service administration. Third, you will consider a report in order that would remove the commission's national television multiple ownership rule.

Fourth, you will consider a third notice of proposed rulemaking in order that would promote telehealth in rural America. This is your agenda for today. The first item will be presented by the office of engineering and technology and is titled unleashing unlicensed spectrum for direct to device. Andrew Henderson, chief of the office, will give the introduction.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Chief Hendrickson, when you're ready, please proceed. >> Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, commissioners. We are pleased to present for your consideration a notice of proposed rulemaking that would update the commission's rules to allow satellite and space operations in a certain part 15 unlicensed bands. These bands support widely used technologies such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Expanding satellite access to them would increase available spectrum for direct-to-device satellite services and support the development of new applications and services.

With me at the table is Michael Ha, chief of the policy and rules division. Hugh Van Tile, a senior engineer in our policy and rules division. Hugh will present the item. All you Hugh. >> Good morning, Mr.

Chairman and commissioners. The item before you is a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes to modify the rules to permit direct to device and other satellite and space operations in frequency bands that are available for unlicensed use under part 15. Allowing D2D and bands used for unlicensed operation would make additional spectrum available for this purpose and provide an opportunity to mitigate a future spectrum shortfall. The NPRM proposes new frequency allocations for Earthto space operations in more than 200 megahertz within the 2.4 gigahertz and 5.8 gigahertz bands that are currently available for use by unlicensed devices under part 15 of the rules.

It proposes to permit earthto space transmissions in this these bands at power levels to comply with the current part 15 technical rules. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the commission should allow space-to-earth operations in the 5.8 gigahertz band or other bands and if so what licensing and other requirements can can enable efficient spectrum sharing and prevent harmful interference. The NPRM proposes to clarify that the operation of intentional and unintentional radiators that comply with the part 15 requirements is permissible in the fully shielded environment within a spacecraft but remains subject to any other requirements for equipment used on spacecraft.

It seeks comment on what rule changes a commission could make to facilitate communications in extra vehicular activities and between spacecraft or other space-based devices to support developing space industries. The staff recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges solely for technical and conforming edits. Thank you. >> Thank you for the presentation. We'll now hear comments from the bench starting with Commissioner Gomez.

In law school, I took an evening class taught by a very animated full-time practicing attorney, part-time adjunct professor. I remember being amazed at how after a full day of work, he showed up to my communications 101 class energized and excited to teach us. I thought,"I want to do what this guy's doing." Items like the notice of proposed rulemaking before us today remind me of the continuous innovation that is core to technology and telecommunications law. Innovation that is energizing and makes us global leaders.

Today we begin to ask questions about if and how satellites might be able to use unlicensed spectrum for directed device. Is a technology in place to make this a possibility? What are the benefits for consumers? What are the costs for industry?

How do we continue to support the ecosystem of unlicensed users that have advanced connectivity and innovation while expanding new uses of limited spectrum? I'm glad to see that the FCC is continuously thinking about ways to support technological innovation and to improve spectrum utilization. At the same time, I am concerned about the effect this new use could have on existing permitted unlicensed uses in already congested bands. That is why as we explore permitting innovative uses of spectrum like the one described in this NPRM, it is critical that we ask thorough questions and ground our proposals and technological studies that help us to strike the right balance between allowing new uses without undoing previous technological advances.

Thank you to the Office of Engineering and Technology for your creative thinking and including critical questions and to the office of the chairman for incorporating my edits to this item. I look forward to hearing from stakeholders and seeing the record that develops in this area. >> Thank you, Commissioner. We'll now hear from Commissioner Trusty. >> Thank you. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to visit NASA headquarters where I learned more about how the agency is working to advance American space superiority.

In addition to returning Americans to the moon by 2028 and promoting human space exploration throughout our solar system, NASA's work includes enabling more scientific research missions. laying the foundation for lunar economic development and supporting emergency commercial services in space. Achieving these goals and maintaining US leadership in this new space age will require a healthy and vibrant orbital ecosystem, one that fosters American free enterprise, technology, innovation and scientific discovery, and a sustained US presence in space. The FCC's ongoing work to boost the space economy and encourage the development of directtodevice services in particular is critical to driving this dynamic ecosystem forward.

By enabling satellites to connect directly with mobile handsets, D2D technology is creating opportunities to strengthen the US commercial space industry as well as improve communications resilience and accelerate innovation in satellite technology. We've already seen consumers benefiting from commercial D2D offerings on the market today, including emergency text messaging services and improved connectivity in remote locations. And as D2D services continue to mature, they're expected to support seamless connectivity between terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks, providing near ubiquitous global broadband coverage, enhanced public safety and disaster resilience, and support for the internet of things at scale.

To enable continued innovation in D2D technology, I welcome today's notice of proposed rulemaking to examine whether existing unlicensed spectrum allocations can support D2D operations. Unlicensed spectrum has unlocked major US-led innovations to date, from Wi-Fi and wireless broadband to consumer electronics, industrial applications, and more. All of which are delivering substantial benefits to consumers and the US economy. With this proceeding, we can determine whether unlicensed spectrum may also play a role in supporting D2D services and potentially other space-based technologies.

The commission has repeatedly shown that innovation and authorized operations can coexist when spectrum policy is grounded in sound engineering and clear rules. And so I look forward to reviewing the record in this proceeding to determine whether D2D operations can be introduced into unlicensed spectrum without undermining the reliability and success of existing spectrum users. I also appreciate the chairman's inclusion of language to strengthen the national security protections in this item by seeking comment on ways to ensure covered list entities cannot benefit from any future satellite uses of unlicensed spectrum. Strengthening US leadership in space and advancing American ingenuity in this emerging frontier is vital to our continued economic prosperity and national security.

And today's commission action takes an important step toward creating new potential opportunities for D2D innovation and next generation space-based services. My thanks to the dedicated staff of the Office of Engineering and Technology for their great work on this item. Thanks. >> Thank you, Commissioner. President Trump has made clear that he wants America to lead the world again in next generation technology.

And at the FCC, we've taken that call to heart and are working across a number of fronts to put America and our consumers back at the forefront of innovation. One example is our ongoing efforts to unleash direct-to-device or D2D technology. D2D services will allow consumers to connect directly from their smartphone or other device to a low Earth orbit satellite. No need for a standalone satellite dish.

And that will mean instant and ubiquitous connectivity. Over the last 18 months, we've taken a series of steps to create the regulatory framework that will allow D2D to develop to the benefit of the American consumer. We have freed up spectrum for D2D use. We've provided certainty about buildout milestones.

And we've offered clarity about exclusivity and legal rights so that providers have the incentives to invest billions of dollars needed to make this a success. Indeed, we've already seen tens of billions of dollars in deal flow for D2D offerings before the FCC. Now, to foster the long-term evolution of D2D communications, today's item looks ahead to unchartered frontiers. For the first time, we are exploring whether D2D services are technically possible in more than 200 megahertz of unlicensed spectrum bands.

These frequencies could yield more capacity to complement D2D services and encourage experimentation. Unlicensed spectrum already powers a range of household devices and important innovations. And our inquiry today ask a lot of questions that are designed to ensure that these bands remain an American success story for existing and future services of all types. We are excited to see where the answers to this inquiry lead us.

So thank you to everyone that has worked hard on this item and all the other D2D efforts. Uh but for this one in particular, Chief Hendrickson, Michael Ha, Hugh Van Tile, Ira Keltz, Jameson Prime, Tom Strubal, Steven Duel, Tom Durange, Cameron Edmod, Patrick's Sun, Alex Yankkevich, and Keith McCricer. Thanks for all your work. With that, we'll proceed to a vote vote on the item starting learning to talk today.

Uh starting with Commissioner Gomez, >> approve. >> Commissioner Trusty >> approve. The chair votes to approve as well. The item is adopted with editorial privileges as requested. Madam Secretary, will you please announce the next item on today's agenda? >> Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners, item two on your agenda is titled Maximizing Efficiencies in the Universal Service Administration and will be presented by the Wireline Competition Bureau. Joseph Kalesonne, bureau chief, will give the introduction. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.

The Wireline Bureau is pleased to present for your consideration a notice of proposed rulemaking that would seek comment on the current administration of the universal service fund to ensure the commission is effectively and efficiently implementing its universal service obligations. I'd like to thank the Wireline team and the office of managing director for their very hard work on this item as well as our colleagues throughout the commission. With me at the table today are Jody Griffin, deputy bureau chief, Brian Bole, chief of the bureau's telecommunications access policy division, Stephanie Minnik, associate division chief, and Sonum James, Attorney Adviser in the division, who will now present the item. >> Thank you, Joseph, and good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.

This notice of proposed rulemaking, if adopted, would seek comment on and proposed measures to strengthen the commission's management and administration of the universal service fund. More specifically, this notice would seek comment on and proposed changes to four areas related to USF administration. First, the notice would seek comment on current USF administration processes used today by the universal service administrative company or USAC to administer the USF and the commission's oversight of the those processes. The notice would seek comment on ways to streamline USAC processes or otherwise improve the transparency, accountability, and cost effectiveness of USF administration.

The notice would propose requiring more public reports from USAC and improving USA's ability to effectuate recoveries of improper disbursements. Next, the notice would seek comment on the structure of USF administration, ways to minimize the cost of USF administration, and whether changes should be made to the current administrator or its responsibilities. Third, the notice would seek comment on operating costs associated with USF administration, including USA's administrative budget and staffing levels, as well as whether there are ways to limit or reduce USAC's administrative costs. The notice would see also seek comment on strengthening the commission's annual USAC auditing processes.

Finally, the notice would seek comment on the impact of USA's board of directors on USF administration, including seeking comment on the structure, size, and composition of the board and the potential for conflicts of interest from board members, including reducing the size of the board and modifying the composition of the board and its committees. The Wireline Competition Wireline Competition Bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. Thank you. >> Thank you for the presentation.

When I heard comments from the bench, starting with Commissioner Gomez. >> When creating [clears throat] the FCC, Congress tasked the agency with making communication services available to all people of the United States without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. This mandate has been at the heart of our universal service programs for the last three decades. For most of that time, the universal service administrative company or USAC has served as our permanent administrator. I was pleased that last year the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of both the Universal Service Fund and USA's role as administrator.

Today's item asks important questions about how we can better ensure that USF is administered in a manner that is efficient, effective, and competitively neutral. As we examine ways to improve the fund and its programs, we must remain focused on our goal of closing the digital divide by supporting not only deployment but also affordability and digital literacy. Thank you to the chairman for working with me on edits and thank you to the Wireline Competition Bureau for your work on this item. Thank you, Commissioner Trusty. >> Thank you.

The commission can delegate work, but it cannot delegate its statutory responsibilities. Last year, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the universal service fund. In doing so, it also reaffirmed an important principle. While the Universal Service Administrative Company performs vital administrative functions, the commission and the commission alone is responsible for making the policy decisions entrusted to us by Congress.

Congress has likewise recognized the importance of maintaining appropriate oversight of USA's role. For example, the broadband data act makes clear that management of the national broadband map, a critical tool for commission policymaking, cannot be delegated to USAC. And where Congress has assigned USAC important administrative responsibilities, it has also imposed safeguards to ensure careful stewardship of public resources as with the emergency connectivity fund. What began as a temporary administrative arrangement has over nearly three decades evolved into a quasi permanent structure we rely upon today.

As that role has grown, it's only appropriate that the commission periodically examine whether its oversight should evolve as well. This notice does exactly that by seeking comment on ways to ensure that USAC operates efficiently and effectively and as transparently as possible while remaining accountable to the commission. I especially welcome the opportunity to consider improvements to USA's outreach and stakeholder engagement as well as ideas to strengthen oversight and increase transparency into USA decision-making. and I thank the Wireline Competition Bureau for its great work on this item. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner.

It's been nearly three decades now since the FCC designated USAC as the administrator for the agency's roughly $9 billion a year universal service fund. The fund's administrator carries out important functions from billing and collection to disbursement of those dollars. In all those years, there's never been a comprehensive review of USA's functions or organization. Today, we're taking the next step in our toptobottom review of all aspects of the USF programs by looking at how they're being administered.

USAC exists solely as an administrative facilitator and is required to carry out the USF program in an efficient, effective, and competitively neutral manner. they have and continue to do good and important work. At the same time, there are areas for potential improvement as the record in response to previous FCC inquiries show, including in our delete, delete, delete proceeding. So today's item focuses on improvements in four main areas. First, the item aims to reform USF administration processes and the commission's oversight of them.

Second, we're examining USAC's role and responsibilities as administrator. Third, we're taking a closer look at the operating costs of USAC to ensure limited funding is used efficiently. And finally, we're evaluating changes to the size, composition, and election of the board of directors of USAC to address any potential conflict of interest concerns and their impact on administration. We also propose improvements to other USAC functions, including the audit process.

The main goals are to bring more accountability and transparency to the administration of USF and make sure the programs continue to be carried out in an effective and efficient manner. This will ensure Americans receive the best bang for the buck on the universal service spending that the FCC does is a common sense win for efficiency and accountability. Thanks again to the staff for all of the hard and great work on this item, including Chief Kalishon, Sonam James, Divia Shenoi, Stephanie Min, Matthew Baker, Brian Bole, Jody Griffin, Andrea Kelly, Steven Furata, Dana Terry, and Joanna Fister. Thanks again for all of your work.

We'll proceed to a vote on the item starting with Commissioner Gomez. >> Approve. >> Commissioner Trusty >> approve. The chair votes to approve as well. The item is adopted with editorial privileges as requested. Madam Secretary, will you please announce the next item on today's agenda? >> Mr.

Chairman and commissioners, item three on your agenda is titled amendment of section 73.3555(e) of the commission's rules national television multiple ownership rule and will be presented by the media bureau. Hillary Dengro, deputy bureau chief will give the introduction. Thanks, Deputy Chief. When you are ready, please proceed. >> Good morning, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners. Today, the media bureau presents a report and order that empowers local television broadcasters to compete in today's video marketplace. It eliminates a rule that limits multiple ownership of broadcast television stations based on national audience reach. It's commonly known as the national cap.

Joining me at the table today are Bill Door Dash and Chad Guo of the Media Bureau. and Chad will present the item. >> Mr. Chairman, commissioners, section 73.3555(e) of the commission's rules restricts an entity from having a cognizable interest in television stations that have an aggregate national audience reach exceeding 39%. This prevents local broadcasters from competing with other video providers who can reach up to 100% of the country. After extensive review, the media bureau finds that the national cap no longer serves the commission's public interest goals due to fundamental changes in the media marketplace.

Limiting the percentage of households that networks may reach through stations the networks could own and operate themselves once ensured the network's continued reliance on affiliated television stations for the nationwide distribution of network programming. However, now that networks can reach viewers directly via non-broadcast platforms, the national cap no longer plays a role in maintaining this balance. Instead, the national cap constrains the ability of broadcast television station owners to attract capital and generate revenue through achieving greater scale.

Eliminating the national cap would remove these restrictions and provide leverage to owners of local broadcast television stations against national networks by enabling these station owners to expand their nationwide audience reach. In addition, eliminating the national cap would enable the commission to review transactions based on whether they serve the public interest on a case-by-case basis rather than deferring to outdated ex ante limits. The media bill recommends that the commission adopt this report in order and request editorial privileges to make any necessary technical or conforming edits. Thank you. >> Thank you for the presentation.

We'll now hear comments from the bench starting with Commissioner Gomez. >> Um so just to start, despite my disagreement with this item, I'm tremendously impressed that you just gave all that from memory. Today's decision to eliminate the 39% national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and long-standing broadcasting policy. Congress set this cap in federal law and only Congress can change it. I cannot support an action that so plainly violates the law and exceeds the commission's authority while simultaneously overlooking the real world consequences for the public we serve.

The national cap matters and Congress, not this commission, controls its fate. Today's action undermines our core public interest principles of localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition while failing to consider or to address the interconnected rules, market realities, and economic pressures that define today's media ecosystem. Broadcast television remains one of the nation's most vital civic institutions precisely because it is free, universally accessible, and rooted in the communities it serves. Unlike unlike subscription-based or algorithm-driven digital platforms, broadcasting is a public-f facing technology designed from the outset to deliver content that strengthens civic infrastructure and supports democratic engagement.

At its best, broadcasting is a glue that holds communities together by providing local journalism, emergency information, cultural touchstones, and live events that speak to us, that speak to who we are and what we value. Local journalism sits at the center of this civic mission. It is the backbone of localism, supplying coverage of public safety issues, local government, community concerns, schoolboard decisions, and regional sports. Matters at national outlet outlets neither cover nor understand with the nuance they require.

Many national stories begin at the local level, and communities rely on reporters who know their neighborhoods, understand their residents, and can contextualize national issues through a local lens. This service cannot be replicated at a national scale. That is why the law has long afforded local broadcasters special treatment because communities depend on them. Broadcasting is also indispensable in emergencies.

Over-the-air alerts save lives and broadcasters ability to reach virtually every household, even when broadband is down or mobile networks are congested, is a public safety asset unmatched by any technology company. When a storm is approaching, when wildfires threaten communities, when a chemical spill forces evacuations, when seconds matter, broadcasters provide immediate authoritative information. Culturally, broadcasting binds the country together through shared experiences. National sporting events such as the Super Bowl, the Olympics, and the World Cup are not merely entertainment.

They are common, unifying events that cross political, geographic, and demographic lines. Regional and local sports carry similar importance, reflecting the identities of states, towns, and schools. Congress recognized the civic and cultural significance of sports broadcasting when it enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act, underscoring the public value of ensuring these shared experiences remain broadly accessible. These public interest benefits flow from what broadcasters do uniquely well, delivering time-sensitive live content.

News, emergency alerts, and sports, all core to the public interest, depend on real time distribution, consistency, and universal reach. And while news and emergency services are public goods, sports content serves the public interest and helps sustain the economic model that makes those public goods possible. Recent events underscore this synergy. the World Cup's unifying impact and strong ratings, the Olympics broad national resonance, and football's extraordinary audience reach. 92 of the top 100 broadcasts in 2025 were football games. These are not just ratings milestones.

They are reminders of broadcasting's unique role in our cultural fabric. But today, the financial model that underpins broadcast journalism and emergency communications is under strain. Global digital platforms, which include some of the largest and most powerful corporations in history, are aggressively moving into sports, siphoning away a cornerstone of broadcast revenue at a moment when advertising markets are already tightening. It is difficult [clears throat] to overstate the significance of this shift.

As big tech competes for sports rights, the economic viability of the broadcast model becomes more precarious. Broadcasters are being squeezed from both sides. Digital giants compete for their most valuable programming and advertising while consolidating consolidation pressures at the national level threaten the local reporting and public safety functions on which communities rely. But eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from that strain.

It just changes who is doing the squeezing. A handful of of station group giants does not represent the wishes of local broadcasters. They are large national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them without much local input. Trading a squeeze from big tech for a squeeze from big media does nothing to protect the communities this cap was designed to serve.

I recognize that broadcasters are facing serious economic pressures, but addressing one pressure point in isolation without looking at the full picture of rules, obligations, and relief already on the table risk setting the wrong incentives. Broadcasters get special regulatory treatment because they serve their communities. Peace meal fixes that ignore that trade-off will undermine that mission instead of strengthening it. The national national audience reach cap has always served as a structural safeguard to preserve localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition.

Congress deliberat deliberately enshrined the cap in statute and removed it from the commission's review process. Congress said the commission cannot look the other way and declined to enforce it. And Congress required any company that exceeds the cap to sell off stations within two years. These caps were deliberate.

These steps, I'm sorry, were deliberate, explicit, and binding. The commission is relying on court decisions issued before Congress made those changes. Those cases interpreted a framework that no longer exists. To pretend otherwise is not legal reasoning.

It is legal evasion. It's worth noting that Republicans with deep firsthand knowledge of this issue also agree the commission cannot do what it is attempting to do today. Former FCC Commissioner Michael Riley has been unequivocal that the FCC lacks authority to change the cap. Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, who negotiated the 39% compromise, has stressed that Congress intentionally wrote the cap into law to prevent FCC revision.

And Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz has said he is skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress. Their consensus reinforces a simple point. Congress set the cap and only Congress can change it. Even setting legality aside, eliminating the cap is bad policy.

It invites further consolidation at a time when consolidation has consistently resulted in newsroom mergers, content duplication, fewer independent voices, and higher retransmission consent fees passed directly to consumers. It strengthens negotiating leverage for large national owners while doing nothing to ensure that the gains from consolidation translate into increasing community focused reporting or improving emergency communications. And it disregards the broader context in which broadcasters are asking this commission and Congress for relief from next generation TV transition policies to sports broadcasting rules to expanded retransmission consent obligations on virtual MVPDs. We do not have to look far for a clear warning sign.

When this commission unlawfully waived the cap to clear the way for the next Nexstar-Tegna merger, a federal judge halted the deal, finding that the states and Direct TV are likely to succeed in proving it violates antitrust law. A court has already signaled that this kind of consolidation may harm competition and consumers, something that we should take seriously as this commission moves to remove the cap altogether. And broadcasting does not need to look outside the world of journalism for a second warning. Over roughly the same period that the large newspaper chains grew their share of the industry from one-third to 70%.

The country lost more than 3,300 newspapers. Consolidation did not save that industry. Instead, it concentrated what was left of it while the industry itself collapsed. Regulatory decisions must come together not at cross purposes.

If the commission wants to support the economic foundation of broadcasting, and I believe we should, it must do so with a holistic strategy ensuring that relief in one area is not used to justify overreach in another. and that incentives remain aligned with local broadcasters obligations to serve their communities with programming that meets local needs, supports democratic engagement, and provides life-saving information when it matters most. Eliminating a statutory cap without addressing these interconnected issues will hasten the very collapse we should be working to prevent. Communities depend on strong, independent local journalism. They depend on broadcasters for lifesaving emergency information.

They depend on free, widely accessible programming that holds communities together. Today's decision threatens those values and exceeds the authority Congress has given us. For these reasons, I respectfully descent. >> Thank you, Commissioner. We'll now hear from Commissioner Trusty. >> Thank you.

Today's vote recognizes that the media marketplace has changed dramatically while many of our rules have not. When the national broadcast television ownership rule was last meaningfully updated, Netflix had not yet begun its streaming service, YouTube did not exist, and appointment television was still very much the norm with many American families planning their evenings around linear broadcast schedules. Now over two decades later, audiences have shifted from scheduled broadcasts to on demand viewing with millions opting for the convenience of near endless streaming libraries. The data confirm these trends.

Today, streaming viewership surpasses the combined share of broadcast and cable and is more than double that of broadcast television alone. These changes have fundamentally altered the competitive landscape for local broadcasters. Consider the effect on advertising revenues that once sustained local television. These revenues now increasingly flow to digital platforms with particularly significant consequences for stations serving medium-sized and smaller markets.

At the same time, broadcasters face increased costs to obtain network programming while receiving a smaller share of the revenues generated through streaming distribution arrangements negotiated by the national networks themselves. These economic pressures ultimately affect viewers. Facing higher cost and diminished resources, local broadcasters have been forced to close newsrooms across the country, increasing the number of local news deserts to record highs last year. For several communities, this means the elimination of the first and in many instances the only source of free, factual, relevant, timely, and trusted local news.

The practical impact is less informed decision-making, reduced emergency awareness, and a decline in civic engagement and accountability. This brings me to today's commission action to eliminate the national television ownership cap. Although I do not view this proceeding as a silver bullet to reverse audience or marketplace trends entirely, I do believe that eliminating the cap removes a regulatory constraint that can unnecessarily stand in the way of strengthening broadcasters ability to compete and serve their communities. Greater scale can improve financial sustainability.

It can provide additional resources to invest in local journalism, emergency coverage, investigative reporting, and community programming. It can improve broadcasters bargaining position with national networks and enhance their ability to compete for valuable programming such as live sports. Most importantly, it can help strengthen broadcasters in the current marketplace. And stronger broadcasters are better positioned to continue fulfilling the public interest obligations that Congress has assigned to them.

The commission simply cannot expect broadcasters to advance localism, competition, and diverse viewpoints if the underlying business model is unsustainable. Now, some may ask why the commission should devote special attention to broadcasters when consumers enjoy more choices for video programming than ever before. The answer lies in the Communications Act. Unlike streaming platforms or other digital competitors, broadcast licences operate pursuant to public interest obligations established by Congress.

Those obligations include providing local programming, emergency communications, and service to their communities. Because broadcasters shoulder responsibilities that many of their competitors do not, the commission has a corresponding responsibility to ensure that our regulatory framework allows them a meaningful opportunity to fulfill those obligations. Under the law, Congress directed the commission to encourage the larger and more effective use of broadcast spectrum to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of broadcast stations among states and communities, and ultimately to ensure the best practical service to the public. Today's decision advances those long-standing statutory objectives.

Indeed, the commission has long recognized that marketplace developments affecting the economic viability of broadcasters can directly influence their ability to serve the public interest. Throughout the history of broadcast regulation, the FCC has evaluated the evolving relationship between networks and affiliates and has adjusted its regulatory approach as competitive conditions have changed. That history reflects an enduring principle. When marketplace realities evolve, the commission must ensure that its regulatory framework continues to serve the public interest Congress has entrusted us to protect.

The Communications Act provides the commission with multiple tools to accomplish that objective. We may establish generally applicable rules through rulemaking and we may also evaluate individual transactions through our licensing authority. As the Supreme Court has explained, where Congress provides agencies with both forms of authority, choosing between them lies primarily in the informed discretion of the administrative agency. Here, a case-by-case licensing approach is particularly appropriate.

Rather than relying on a rigid nationwide ownership cap, the commission can evaluate each proposed transaction on its individual merits, considering specific competitive effects, local market conditions, and public interest benefits presented by the record. That approach is firmly grounded in long-standing commission practice, and wellestablished principles of administrative law. I appreciate that the item also will provide some initial guidance on how the FCC plans to approach that case-by-case review so we can confirm each transaction truly will ensure the best practical service to the local communities involved.

And so having determined that the existing ownership cap does not advance the public interest, we move forward today to fulfill our responsibilities under the Communications Act using the tools the act provides for us. Some have argued that section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevents the commission from carrying out its public interest duties despite the procedures the Communications Act places at our disposal. On balance, I'm ultimately persuaded that section 202 merely directed the commission to modify a rule originally adopted under the Communications Act, but it did not permanently strip the commission of the authority Congress otherwise granted to revise that rule when doing so serves the public interest.

But I recognize that reasonable minds can differ about the best statutory interpretation. Justice Scalia once described the 1996 act as quote a model of ambiguity or indeed even self-contradiction unquote and the 2004 update to section 202 continue to operate within that statutory framework rather than charting a new path and speaking to this issue clearly and directly with entirely new statutory language. The passage of time also has not let led to greater stakeholder cont consensus on this legal question either. And given those continued disputes, I agree with the view that a final decision like the one we adopt here can enable legal clarity on this issue through court review.

That being said, I commend the chairman for his leadership and for his willingness to confront this issue, one that can help preserve a vital part of the nation's media ecosystem and give local broadcasters the opportunity to remain strong, competitive, and capable of serving their communities. Finally, my sincere thanks to the media bureau for their hard and thoughtful work on this item. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Last month, the editor of the New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger, wrote in an op-ed that a healthy democracy depends on an informed public, which in turn depends on the flow of information and accountability provided by independent reporters.

This is true, he said, not just at the national level, but in each of the communities, each town, each city, each county, each capital that comprise these United States. Now, for those of us back here at the FCC, we can probably hear echoes in his language of the agency's longstanding localism policy. For decades, our media regulations have focused on empowering broadcasters to air programming that responds to the specific needs and interests and issues of their communities. Localism matters.

It is vital as a country that our future include reporters working in local newsrooms, producing stories that matter to the communities that those journalists live in. After all, Americans trust their local journalists a whole lot more than the national mass media personalities. The very foundation of our broadcast industry is built on this idea that local TV stations licensed to local communities air programming responsive to their needs. Congress never envisioned that local broadcast TV stations would become nothing more than undifferentiated passroughs for national programming produced in Hollywood and New York.

But if the FCC does not change course, this could become the reality in many towns in cities and counties. We've seen this dynamic play out before. Just look at local newspapers. Years ago, the FCC adopted a rule that limited investment in local newspapers.

Now, the rule may have made sense back in the 1970s when it was adopted. It might even have preserved some local newspapers given the market structure at the time. But as the industry underwent tectonic shifts, the agency stood still. Newspapers started to see increased competition.

Cable, the internet, Craigslist, social media, digital advertising. Back at the FCC, commissioners debated whether to change the rule to allow increased investment in local newspapers, but it took no action. It then started to talk a lot about tough choices and trade-offs and changing conditions all while continuing to do nothing. The market moved on.

The agency's talking notwithstanding. Newspapers started to lay off reporters. They decreased the number of days they went to print. Then they started to close down altogether.

Printing presses removed. Offices emptied out. A few at first, then by the dozen. Today, one closes every three days.

Nearly 3,500 newspapers have shuttered over the past years alone. When the FCC finally eliminated its outdated restriction on investment in local newspapers, a step it didn't take until the first Trump administration, the damage from agency inaction was all but complete. A daily local newspaper is pretty hard to come by these days. The industry is largely dominated by a handful of effectively national papers.

That's not an outcome consistent with localism. It doesn't promote a diversity of views and there is far less competition between papers today. Not more. The lesson is clear.

The FCC kept a rule on the books in the name of localism that contributed to the gutting of local newspapers. Maybe the FCC was slow to see the forest from the trees. Maybe just thought the politics were too fraught. It's always easier to say something must be done while doing nothing.

The courts contributed to entertaining activist lawsuits to overturn FCC efforts at reform, but the outcome is the same either way. I don't want local broadcast TV to go the way of local newspapers. Then yet the risk is real. Sulzberger in his op-ed he named the statistics.

He said over the last two decades quote more than 80% of local journalism jobs have vanished. More than 80% gone. What's the FCC's policy response? To do nothing?

To just hope? To take a wait and see approach the way we did with local newspapers? In my view, if you care about trusted sources of local news and information, you have to care about the future of local broadcast TV stations. They are the economic engines that are producing paychecks for so many of the local journalists that remain in the business.

So, how can the FCC maximize the odds that those institutions survive and hopefully thrive into the future? To start, we should stop hamstringing this one segment of the broader market with outdated restrictions. National programmers are free to reach 100% of their relevant markets by distributing their programs direct to consumer or through deals they cut with virtual cable companies that have nationwide reach. Cable channels, they can reach 100% of the country.

Social media sites 100% too. Same with Netflix, podcasts, and all other forms of digital content. Even the old newspaper has no limits on marking itself to 100% of households. But not so with the owners of local broadcast.

The FCC has had a bright line rule that generally prevented the agency from even considering the merits of certain deals. Maybe a deal that exceeds a 39% cap is a good one. [clears throat] Maybe it's a bad one. Today's decision lets the parties make their case. allows all stakeholders to be heard and ensures that the agency will decide. Consistent with our public interest review, we're replacing a blunt instrument with a much more granular case by case approach.

The FCC's legal authority to modify the national cap is also clear. The DC Circuit has already rejected the argument that Congress's decision to pass a statute directing the agency to set the cap at a specific percentage prevents the FCC from later modifying the cap. The court stated that Congress's statutory instruction to the commission to set the cap at a specific percentage determine quote only the starting point from which the commission was to assess the need for further change. The DC circuit is not alone in expressing that view.

In fact, an unbroken line of FCC chairs going back more than a dozen years all agreed that the FCC has the authority to modify the cap. Under President Obama's FCC chair, the agency determined, quote, "The commission has the authority to modify the national audience reach cap." Continuing the agency found in that decision that quote no statute bars the commission from revisiting the cap. Congress did not according to that FCC quote impose a statutory national audience reach cap or prohibit the commission from evaluating the elements of this rule. President Biden's FCC chair voted to approve of that same decision in those same conclusions.

President Trump's first FCC chair also took the same position. He wrote that the agency quote rightly rejects the argument that Congress took away the commission's authority to modify the cap, writing quote that the commission has the authority to modify both the national audience reach restriction and the UHF discount. I agree with President Biden's FCC chair. I agree with President Trump's first FCC chair.

And I agree with President Obama's FCC chair, at least on this one. The FCC has the authority to modify the cap as we do today and it is the right policy answer to if you care about the future of trusted local news. It's time to restore balance to the broadcast airwaves. Repealing the national cap will provide essential relief for local broadcasters by restoring a healthy counterbalance to the growing leverage and power of national programmers.

Increased scale could enable broadcasters to attract the capital and advertising revenue needed to sustain and produce trusted community focused news and programming. We should learn from our mistake with local newspaper industry and we should not let the same thing happen to local broadcast TV industry. Trusted sources of local reporting broadcast over the public airwaves is something worth protecting and worth fighting for. So, this item today has my full support and I want to thank the team for the tremendous work that you all put into it.

Thank you to Deputy Chief Dengro. Thank you as well to Julie Salivara, Chad Guo, Bill Derdach, Ty Breen, Lorie Marberg, Susan Aaron, Jin Lee, David Consul, Scott Bubilis, Andrew Wise, Kim Much, and Joselyn James as well for all your work. And with that, we'll proceed to a vote on the item starting with Commissioner Gomez. Um acknowledging the work of the bureau um I descent. >> Commissioner trustee >> approve. >> The chair votes to approve as well.

The item is adopted with editorial privileges as requested. Madam secretary, [clears throat] will you please announce the next item on today's agenda? >> Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Item four on your agenda is titled promoting telehealth in rural America and will presented by the Wireline Competition Bureau and Joseph Kaleson chief of the bureau will give the introduction.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. The bureau is pleased to present for your consideration an item that would continue our effort to streamline and enhance the rural healthcare program. This third further notice, if adopted, would seek comment on several possible program improvements.

I'd like to thank the bureau team and our colleagues in the offices of general counsel and economics and analytics for their hard work on this item. Joining me at the table today are Allison Baker, associate bureau chief, Brian Bole, chief of the bureau's telecommunications access policy division, Kate Dum Michelle, deputy division chief, and Philip Benmo, assistant division chief, who will now present the item. >> Thank you, Joseph, and good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Today's third further notice of proposed rulemaking, if adopted, seeks comment on several possible rural health care program improvements intended to reduce burdens on program participants while protecting limited universal service fund resources from waste, fraud, and abuse.

The item first seeks comment on redefining the terms similar service and comparable rural area that are used when determining support available through the telecommunications program and whether existing standards to define a similar service are still a reasonable interpretation of the communications act. The item next request comment on how to reduce cost study burdens, including by revisiting evidentiary requirements previously proposed by the commission in 2023 and on three proposed alternatives to cost studies involving the use of wholesale rates, previously approved rates or rate projections.

The item also seeks comment on ways to encourage health care providers use of lowerc cost options for backup communications services which provide continuity in the event of a system failure including the use of the most cost-effective option available. The item also proposes adoption of an eligible services list modeled in part on the E-Rate program's Eligible Services List. The item lastly seeks comment on two rule changes suggested in response to the delete delete delete initiative. First, the elimination of the requirement that USAC approve evergreen contracts and second, the elimination of a healthcare connect fund annual report requirement.

The order within this item waves the commission's rules to permit the use of previously approved rural rates in lieu of cost studies for funding year 2027. The Wireline Competition Bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. Thank you. >> Thank you for the presentation. We'll now hear comments from the bench starting with Commissioner Gomez.

This item continues our work to make the rural health care program easier to navigate for the providers and applicants who depend on it while also giving them some near-term relief as we look at longer term fixes. For a family in a remote community, a reliable connection can be the difference between a doctor catching a problem in time and a patient going without care altogether. And that only happens if the connection is affordable enough for rural providers to keep offering it. We see the same principle at work in where keeping connectivity within reach for schools and libraries is just as central to the mission.

Today we are asking the right questions about how to make the rural healthcare program work better for the people who rely on it every day and I look forward to reviewing the record that develops. I want to thank the Wireline Competition Bureau for their work on this item and I am pleased to support it. >> Thank you commissioner. We now hear from commissioner trustee. >> Thank you. For generations, access to health care in rural America has depended as much on geography as medicine itself.

A century ago, patients often relied on a country doctor, traveling long distances over dirt roads to make a house call. Today, broadband is making it possible for medicine to return to that tradition. Not by bringing the doctor down the road, but by bringing the doctor's expertise directly into a patient's home. In many ways, telehealth is the modern health house call.

On my first trip as FCC commissioner, I visited the University of Miss Mississippi Medical Center. UMC's center for telehealth demonstrates how high-speed broadband networks can deliver quality, affordable, life-saving care to patients in their homes while connecting health care providers across rural communities. My subsequent travels have only reinforced the vital connection between connectivity and quality healthcare. In Alaska, I saw firsthand the importance of broadband enabled medical care in some of our nation's most remote communities, including EEK and the Kenai Peninsula.

In Kansas, I met with broadband providers working to ensure that disabled veterans can access the health care services they need. In Nebraska, staff at Boytown National Hotline described how broadband has expanded their ability to provide mental health support through online communications and digital resources in addition to traditional phone and text services. And just last month in New Mexico, I heard about the transformative role broadband and tele medicine can play in improving access to care on rural tribal lands. These conversations have underscored that reliable connectivity is an essential component of modern healthcare.

Today's item continues the commission's efforts to fulfill Congress's directive by improving the rural health care program so it better serves communities covered by healthcare providers while targeting limited federal resources to where they are needed most. I appreciate the item's focus on providing greater clarity regarding pro program eligibility, streamlining administrative processes where appropriate, and ensuring that supported networks can meet the performance and resiliency demands of modern healthcare. As telehealth applications and services continue to advance and evolve, the commission's policies should advance and evolve, too, so that healthcare providers can keep delivering highquality care to patients regardless of where they live.

I look forward to reviewing the record of this proceeding and my thanks to the Wireline Competition Bureau for their excellent work on this item. >> Thank you, commissioners. If you drive about 2 hours north from El Paso, Texas, you'll find the Mecalero Apache Reservation, which spreads out along the eastern slope of the Sacramento Mountains of New Mexico. When I visited, I had the chance to meet with the talented team at the Mescalero Indian Hospital. That's where community members can now have one-on-one video sessions with mental and behavioral health specialists that are physically located over 200 miles away in Albuquerque.

Thanks to a high-speed connection supported by the FCC's rural health care program. Without this type of hub and spoke model of remote care, important health care services would be out of reach for many people on the reservation. We see these same stories all across the country. So today's item is about making sure that this program continues to deliver great and efficient results.

We seek comment on a lot of common sense ideas for reform to take costs out while making sure the program benefits continue to be realized. So I thank the staff for all the hard and great work on this item. Thanks to Chief Kalishonne, Allison Baker, Matt Baker, Philip Bonamo, Brian Bole, Kate Dum Michelle, Joanna Fister, Paul Le Fontaine, Mace Wakala, I think I got that right. Melena Barzeli and Richard Min.

And with that, we will proceed to a vote on the item starting with Commissioner Gomez. >> Approve. >> Commissioner Trusty >> approve. >> The chair votes to approve as well. The item is adopted with editorial privileges as requested. With that, we've come to the end of the agenda. Would my colleagues like to make any announcements, personnel?

Otherwise, try to filibuster here so you can pull up notes. >> Yes, thank you. >> You're good to go. >> I do have an announcement today. Um, Nia, if you'd like to get up. As the summer comes to an end, it is time to say goodbye to my intern, Nia Grandundi, who has proven herself to be invaluable to my office this summer. I so appreciate Nia's hard work, creativity, legal skills, and enthusiasm as she assisted us with legal and policy research and writing.

In the fall, she will be a rising 2L at Howard University School of Law. and she is looking forward to working as a student attorney in her school's movement lawyering clinic and estate planning and heirs property clinics. A sucker for punishment. >> Thank you, Nia. >> Thanks. [applause] >> Commissioner, >> thank you. Okay. I too would like to recognize uh two outstanding members of my office who've spent the summer with us as legal interns, Lily Fremier and Sam Dodson.

So over the past several months, Lily and Sam have made meaningful contributions to our work across a wide range of issues. They have helped me to prepare for open meetings on matters including universal service, consumer protection, submarine cable licensing, and the equipment authorization program. Lily kept me informed on congressional hearings and legislative developments, helped prepare me for last week's engagements with the Caribbean Telecommunications Union in Miami, and most recently assisted me in uh our briefing with uh NASA this week. And Sam has provided thoughtful research on emerging trends in AI governance and developed a valuable office resource on the service rule proposals in the unleashing American drone dominance public notice.

Their work has been consistently thorough, insightful, and very much appreciated by everyone in the office. And so, Lily, I wish you the absolute best as you begin your second year at Washington and Lee University School of Law. And Sam, I wish you the best as well as you return for your second year at the University of Colorado Law School. So, thank you so much for your hard work, for your professionalism, and uh for your service this summer.

We are so grateful for your contributions and we look forward to seeing all the wonderful things you do in the years ahead. So, thank you so so much. [applause] >> I think the round of applause is new, but it seems like it's a tradition now that's going to have to stick. You don't want to break. You don't be the first person to not get the round of applause.

Um, two announcements from my office. One, we announced earlier this summer, maybe it was this spring, uh, that Cali Coker was moving into the private sector. And now we're announcing an addition to the office. Keelin Ferris.

Keelin recently joined my office as a legal adviser. Raise your hand at least. Keelin won't make you stand, but there's Keelin. She's going to be working on matters before the Wireline Bureau, Public Safety Bureau, Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau.

Uh Keelin brings super strong judgment and discipline to the job. It doesn't hurt that she's a graduate from Catholic law and played college soccer at AU as well. So great to have you on board. And hold your applause.

Uh we also have another announcement. Our intern Patrick Patrick Hart, where's Patrick? His last day in the office is coming up. He's been a tremendous help to the agency and our office on matters relating to national security, media regulations, appropriations issues as well.

And this fall, he'll be looking forward to contributing to again Catholic University Law Review as a staff editor. We've loved having Patrick in the office. grateful for the hard work that he's put in. Wish him all the best. So, welcome to Keelin.

Thank you to Patrick. And that is the end of our announcement. So, congrats. [applause] With that, Madam Secretary, will you please announce the next date for the commission's monthly agenda meeting? >> The next agenda meeting of the Federal Communications Commission is Wednesday, September 30th, 2026. >> Until then, we stand adjourned. >> >> Check. One, two, three.

Testing. One, two. You got >> >> Hello everybody. We're going to be starting the chairman's press conference momentarily.

So if you could please take your conversations outside. All right. Thank you everybody. Uh, welcome to the chairman's press conference.

As a reminder, if you could please give your name and identify your outlet um, upon asking your question, we greatly appreciate that. And with that, I will turn it over to Chairman Carr. >> Uh, thanks so much. Uh, great to see most of you again. We have a big break here between our August meeting and our September meeting.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerUh, so these were two packed meetings backtoback. Uh, another good meeting. Obviously, we've been very much focused here on the FCC's Build America agenda. You saw one big feature of that uh this week which was the direct-to-device item on unlicensed spectrum but it pairs with a lot of other work that we're doing on direct to device.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerThis is one area where when we came in we knew that we wanted America to lead the world in it and we are taking the concrete steps to do exactly that and we think that's going to be really disruptive and a good outcome for consumers. You also saw in the past week or so since our last meeting another effort on national security. Again, we came in, one of the first things we did was stand up a new council on national security inside the agency. We've been taking a series of actions.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerWe did recently uh has been to add to the agency's covered list the advanced robotics which include humanoid robots and quadripeds uh famously referred to as robot dogs by some people. And what we're doing here across the Trump administration is taking [clears throat] a really smart approach to these national security issues. By putting something on the covered list, you're sending a very clear signal to the market about a national security risk while also making sure that there is a timeline to transition. And so we don't want to be in a situation 5 years from now where you've got many many thousands or millions of these types of devices that are a national security risk where we have become overly dependent on supply chains uh overseas.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerWe're telling people that now is the time to onshore a lot of the investment in development into what could be critical elements of our uh national security as well as economic security. So advanced robotics plus power inverters were recently added. There's an exception, a waiver process you can go to. So again, it allows us to take on the national security risk, allow the market to adjust and then go through individually to either accept or we also have the processes um to remove some of the grandfathering provisions as well.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerSo we're really pleased with the roll out of those initiatives. And again, I think I talked about this last month, last meeting, but we're seeing good results on drones, for instance. The agency added drones to the covered list, foreign produced drones at the end of last year. And we've seen, I think the data now shows that we're in excess of five billion dollars that have newly flowed into drone and drone related businesses.

And we're seeing drone motors, for instance, being produced now here in this country uh pacing towards a scale that we haven't seen before. So those are really good outcomes and again ultimately part of our build America agenda. And with that, I'm happy to turn it over to what I'm sure we lots of questions about the Build America agenda. [Reporter Maggie Rhoads, Capitol Forum, asks how the chairman will respond to expected lawsuits and congressional briefs arguing only Congress can change the ownership cap.] >> Well, look, everyone is free to appeal FCC decisions. That's how the process works.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerUh for us it comes down to an analysis of what's the right policy call, where do we think the law is and and everyone is free to litigate. Folks have litigated FCC media uh regulation decisions historically. I wouldn't be surprised if there's appeals here and uh we'll allow the courts to work through it, but we've done our part. You know, when you look at the trend line, again, I think the parallels, as I went on at length probably during my statement to the local newspaper industry, are very clear.

Kelcee Griffis, Bloomberg News — question paraphrasedAnd I don't want to be an FCC chair that sat back and observed the trend and and did nothing. I think it's the right policy call. I also happen to think given the DC circuit's decision uh previously on a different uh specific statutory cap where they said it can be modified that we can do it. But if it goes to the courts, it goes to the courts and we'll litigate it and we'll see where it goes. >> [Reporter Kelcee Griffis, Bloomberg News, asks whether large station-group owners could face regulatory scrutiny if they start acting like national networks.] >> Well, a couple points there. you know, one, when it comes to specific transactions, we're always going to look at the facts there.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerWe've put conditions in place on transactions, and we can put conditions in place on transactions that focus on localism. Uh, and I think we should continue to do that directionally. Again, I I think it's there's an interesting conversation to have about what did Congress intend with the broadcast industry and it's different than national reach uh distribution platforms, the way social media is today or to some extent the way cable is. It's supposed to be a balance between the national programmers and the affiliate agreements and the programming they provide, but also the production of local news, local information.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerAnd we're attempting through a dozen or more different proceedings to try to strengthen and enhance localism. Again, I said in the statement, if we move into a world, and I think some broadcasters are, where they're just becoming nothing more than undifferentiated pass-throughs for national programming produced in Hollywood and New York, I think that's only accelerating uh the decline and sort of increasing some of the secular headwinds that they're facing. I think the future of local broadcast TV has to be localism. And if they are just, you know, a pass through, a mouthpiece for the national feed, people can get that through, you know, YouTube, TV or other channels.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerSo, I think if they're going to continue to exist, uh, they have every market incentive to continue to focus on localism and and the FCC has been. We have the the right to preempt where you're supposed to. If you think there's a better fit, preempt national programming. We'd like to see that trend continue.

John Hendel, Politico — question paraphrasedSo yeah, we will be focused to make sure that broadcasters continue to focus on localism and not just being dumb pipes for u the national feed. >> [Reporter John Hendel, Politico, asks what's driving the FCC's growing national-security focus and whether it's a lasting shift.] >> Well, it is something we we've thought a lot about. I think one way to describe it is is a continuation of a trend that cuts through the Biden administration and the first Trump administration. If you go back, those were some of the first times first Trump administration when we really started to insert national security checks into FCC reviews. That was when we first did the rip and replace proceeding with Huawei and ZTE where we denied before that uh USF subsidies for potentially insecure gear.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerUh Chairwoman Rosenworcel extended and continued a lot of those actions. So in some ways I think this is you know momentum continuing to build towards the realization that uh when it comes to tech and telecom in our networks there are bad actors and foreign adversaries that are constantly poking and proddding and looking for ways in.

Arielle Hixson, MS NOW — question paraphrasedAnd so we are constantly ramping up our work and again from day one the Council on National Security was a clear signal that this particular agency was going to continue and if anything accelerate that trend line and uh and that's exactly what we're doing. >> [Reporter Arielle Hixson, MS Now, asks the chairman to respond to ABC's accusation of attempted censorship.] >> Well, again, I think the Supreme Court has already addressed this question of whether the FCC enforcement of the public interest standard and related statutory obligations that broadcasters have uh is consistent with the first amendment. The Supreme Court has said that enforcing these public interest standards is not censorship. And so with respect to to Disney and ABC, again, there's several proceedings going on.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerThey're making the argument to the agency that um the view is a bona fide news program and people have strong feelings on that. I think on lots of different sides and we're we're looking at the record. We haven't made a final decision, but you know, our job is to enforce the communications act and the public interest standard. And people don't like it.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerUh I get it, but people don't like it in all sorts of context, right? Whether it's, you know, public safety items or wireline items. you find that, you know, people push back and they make a lot of arguments that, you know, in our view aren't true. Um, but we continue to work through it. So, we're going to continue to to move forward.

We're going to continue to enforce the public interest standard and, you know, messaging campaigns notwithstanding. >> [Same reporter follows up on next steps and timeline for the ABC license-renewal proceeding.] We haven't made a a final decision on timing or next steps with respect to Disney ABC's broadcast licenses in particular. We issued an early renewal decision. They filed making their position and their argument that they've operated in the public interest. There had been petitions to deny.

Diego Areas Munhoz, Punchbowl News — question paraphrasedThere have been oppositions to that recently filed by Disney. I think we're now either now or this week there'll be a reply period. So, the pleading cycle is still going. When that closes, uh, we'll take a look at the record and we'll we'll decide based on the evidence before us what the next step will be. >> [Reporter Diego Areas Munhoz, Punchbowl News, asks about the domestic-industry impact of the covered-list actions and whether data-center components will be added next.] Well, the actions we're taking with respect to the covered list, including recently, uh, are not country specific.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerSo, for instance, we, you know, banned all foreign produced drones at the end of last year, as we just talked about. We've uh have added to the covered list all foreign produced advanced robotics, foreign produced routers, but we do it in a way that is, you know, sufficient and directed at national security, but also in a way that avoids a flash cut jarring change to the market. Again, if there's a drone or if there's an advanced robotic that's on the shelves today, the company that makes it can continue to make new version, not new versions, but new ones of that model. You as a consumer can continue to buy it.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerYou can buy it a week from now. Um there's been no action to remove any product, you know, from a consumer's hands. In fact, the FCC hasn't even given itself uh rules that would contemplate that. So, it's a smart transition.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerAnd it's a it's a long-term signal to the mark about where we're going. There are exceptions. So for drones, for instance, there were exceptions that were granted for uh toy drones. So we're exceptions for drones that are on the blue UAS list that were part of the buy America program.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerAnd so we're able to sort of do it with a broad signal, but also carefully calibrated to avoid massive market disruptions. But the market is correcting. Again, we talked about drones.$5 5 billion dollars since that decision that's flowed into drone and drone related things, motors being produced here now. So I think it's it's a very very smart approach.

Since the long-term signal provides certainty over the long run, but allows for a nuanced approach in the short run. Look, if we get a couple hundred or a couple dozen of a bad product, not a great thing, but it's very different than advancing five years from now and having millions and millions of that bad thing. So, you know, we're taking steps now to not be in that circumstance. the data center components. >> What was that? >> [Same reporter repeats the data-center-components question.] >> Uh the decision about what to add is one that's driven by the executive branch national security agencies. They make the decision.

We then implement the decision they make. So I'd refer you to them for any comment on what if anything they may have next. >> [Same reporter presses on why the chairman avoids calling the covered-list actions China-targeted.] >> Well, because the decision that we get comes from the executive branch national security bodies and it is for all foreign produced and so I say it just because it's an accurate depiction of the determination communications. >> [Reporter greets the chairman.] >> I don't know. Couple months maybe.

I don't think I've seen you in person since co, but it's great to see the editor of communications daily coming down and visiting with us. >> >> but thank you for for noticing and >> Oh, thank you. >> [Reporter Howard Buser, Communications Daily, asks for an update on CBRS policy and whether staff can work on the 2.7 GHz and C-band auctions in parallel.] >> Yeah, the the Wireless Bureau team right now is just firing on all cylinders. I can't be more proud of the work that they're getting done. I mean, again, you look at the CBAN proceeding. I think that was uh unprecedented ask by Congress.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerWe moved very, very quickly on that. The team worked hard, really happy with that. But we're walking and chewing gum at the same time. We have plans now for multiple spectrum auctions.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerWe obviously had a big one recently reauction AWS3. We got a really big one next summer which is going to be Cband and we're lined up to have multiple auctions in 2028 and the FCC's work on that uh is already underway including work on 2.7.

So u we went through a period of four years in the Biden years where we really didn't have new spectrum auctions and now we are set up for hundreds of megahertz of spectrum auctions and it's great because that's what ultimately helps to drive down prices for consumers and we're seeing that right we're seeing since Trump was inaugurated cell phone prices down 9 or 10% speeds up as we pump more spectrum into the marketplace that's going to continue that trend line >> [Same reporter follows up asking why CBRS wasn't mentioned.] >> Well, there's people here, yeah, that are focused on all of the spectrum bands.

Ted Johnson, Deadline — question paraphrasedAgain, I think in terms of what, you know, I've been working most closely on right now, it's been getting 803 behind us, getting Cband done and focused on sort of three big new spectrum auctions for 28. But we've got a lot of talented people here that are have eyeballs on, you know, every single spectrum band from CBRS to um to many others as well. >> Yeah. >> [Reporter Ted Johnson, Deadline, asks for reaction to Senator Kennedy's remark that the FCC is nearing a First Amendment violation.] >> Look the regulatory framework for broadcast is fundamentally different than every other distribution platform.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerI think what we got to be clear about is broadcasters cut a deal with the American people, which is the American people have effectively been forced to give broadcasters free subsidized distribution by using the airwaves. The airwaves is a public resource. It's owned ultimately by the American taxpayers. And for instance, mobile wireless providers pay billions and billions of dollars for access to that.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerSo, we're in a situation in which there was a deal that was cut. You get to use this public resource for free, but in exchange, there's a part of the bargain in which you have to operate in the public interest. And again, I think that concept of the deal that was struck, free access, but comply with public interest um is part and parcel of why broadcast is so different. And it's why when these issues have been raised to the Supreme Court, they've been very clear that enforcing the public interest obligations is not anything that approaches censorship or a First Amendment issue.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerSome broadcasters have effectively suggested that they don't want to be held to that bargain anymore. That they want to have this free access to this subsidized spectrum uh and not live up to their public interest obligation. But that breaks the deal with the American people. If they want to do that, then maybe we should look at ways they can do that where they can pay the American people for their access to spectrum and maybe even pay the American people back if they haven't been living up to the public interest standards for a while uh backwards looking for their use of it.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerBut that's the deal and it's been very clear. You know, I think Congress also had a lot of concerns for instance with NPR and PBS. There were members of Congress, this wasn't an FCC call. I think they've articulated the view that they thought that NPR and PBS had gotten too far outside of the mainstream to force every taxpayer to subsidize uh their broadcast operations.

And I think you see a lot of people making some of the same points with broadcast TV. If we're forcing people to effectively subsidize broadcast TV by depriving the Treasury and the people of the billions of dollars that others would pay for it, we should be vigilant about holding them to their public interest obligations. [Same reporter asks for a firm timeline on the ABC license-renewal decision.] >> Well, no no news to break on that. Again, I think the pleading cycle is ongoing. We want to look at the record.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerWe want to review it. Maybe um you know once that process is complete we'll have some better insight into timing but at this point uh we have not made a decision. I think maybe what you're referencing before was during the Biden years when there was arguments raised about Fox News cable channel content on a cable channel which there's no license there's no public interest obligation there's no statutory obligations of that type of sort. Uh the FCC effectively held up a renewal based on concerns about a cable channel and we haven't done that obviously.

So, >> [Reporter Wesley Brown, MLex, asks for a status update on the Amazon-Globalstar matter following DOJ approval.] >> Well, I think they filed their applications um, at least on uh, sorry, there's a couple things going on with with Amazon. There's direct-to-device applications. There's also the transaction. Uh we are working through all those issues but no specific news to break on on timing there.

Chairman Brendan Carr — verbatim answerSo good. Appreciate it. Hope you guys have a good August and we will see some or all of you in September. Thanks. >> Thank you chairman.

This concludes the chairman's press conference. I'll now hand it over to my colleague Will Whitequist for our bureau presser. Thank you so much. Hi all, good morning or afternoon, not sure what time it is.

Um, so we're going to do the bureau press conference. We're going to go through the items that were adopted at today's meeting. We're just taking questions on those items. Um, I'll go through the items and if you have questions for the bureaus that presented those items, we'll call them up.

So, uh, first off, Office of Engineering and Technology. Thank you, Howard. Andy, you're doing the Commale. You're doing, you know, the work of Comm.

I appreciate that. >> I'm carrying all the water today. >> No, I appreciate that. I'd be disappointed if not. Will, do you know why you don't have your own thing on the plaque your own will wa crit up there in front of >> Google for com daily to work on >> [Reporter asks whether the 900 MHz band was changed or removed from the direct-to-device NPRM.] >> There the most significant changes that we made were to remove the 900 mehertz band from it um to give you know and secondly we also gave an additional 30 days for comments. >> [Same reporter asks why the 900 MHz band was dropped from the item.] I I mean it's significantly more complex than the 2.4 GHz or 5.8 gigahertz. Um you know there's multiple types of incumbent services with variant levels of protection that are there.

Um I mean the proceeding is focused on leveraging you know the predominantly unlicensed protocols available to us consumers. Um Wi-Fi applications only kind of have a minor presence there. So I mean I just think therefore ultimately we decided not to consider it. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Any other questions on this item? >> Thanks all. >> Thanks. >> So, next up, for efficiency sake, I'm going to do both the Wireline Bureau items together.

So, both the USF reform and rural health. Howard, do you have any questions? Anyone have any questions? But hey, [snorts] Joseph. >> [Bureau staff greet a reporter.] >> okay. >> [Reporter asks whether there were any notable changes to the USF-reform and rural-healthcare items.] >> there were some minor changes to the rural healthcare item and um some more significant changes um driven largely by the commissioners as I think commissioner trustee um alluded to on the USAC item.

On the RHC item, we added some questions about the backup services, the capacity, latency, um, and security for those services. Uh, comment period for the eligible services list to make it similar to the E-Rate ESL. Um, and then streamlining processes on performance metrics. Um, as Commissioner Trusty said, she added questions regarding the um, content and publication of USAC decisions and changes to their outreach process on the USAC item.

Um, and Commissioner Gomez had a number of edits um, on training for auditors um, bringing certain functions from USA in house and having board members with specific experience in overseeing federal funding. Uh we also made some com um edits in response to ex partes regarding a stakeholder forum to provide feedback to USA um and consistent standards during audits. >> [Reporter thanks the staff for the briefing.] >> Great. Any other questions on either of these items? >> Thanks. Thank you. >> And last but not least, um the media bureau item on the broadcast cap.

Do you have any questions on that? [Reporter continues.] >> I mean we're fine not taking questions on it if you want if you want to go >> >> [Reporter asks whether the media-ownership item changed from the draft circulated three weeks earlier.] Um the item uh received a number of ex partes that were incorporated into the final draft and there was also some additional detail added giving guidance on the case-by-case analysis that would occur uh going forward >> >> Yeah. The item will be out tomorrow. Um and uh you'll be able to uh uh see the description of the um the going forward um uh text that was added. >> >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions on this item? >> Thank you all. >> Great.

And with that, I will hand it off to Commissioner Gomez. And uh good to see you all. Thank you very much. Hello.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerGood afternoon. Thanks for being here. I want to start with what just happened today. This commission voted today to eliminate the national ownership cap.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerCongress wrote into law handing more control of the public airwaves to a small number of companies whose coverage pleases this administration. The commission's rationale for uh its action today is that it balances or it wants to balance the power between local broadcasters and networks. In doing so, it is putting its thumb on the scale in favor of content that this administration likes and against content that it dislikes. We have watched these massive media corporations pull network programming to please this administration just as those same company override the network's own editorial judgment when currying favor cuts the other way.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerBoth moves come from the same playbook. Executives calculating what would win them favor with this administration rather than asking what their viewers actually needed from them. Your local newsroom used to decide what you got to watch. Now that decision increasingly runs through whether it pleases the White House and without a consumer protection measure like the national ownership cap in place, it will only get worse.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerThat is the real story behind this commission's campaign of censorship and control against ABC and Disney. This was never about balance because the FCC has no business balancing the ideological content of the news in the first place. What this commission wants is power. the power to reward broadcasters who play ball and to punish the ones that don't. The American people are not buying it.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerWhen the FCC opened to public comment both the unprecedented early renewal of ABC station licenses and the separate but equally political motivated case against the view, the response was massive and the message cut across party lines. People trust their local stations. They do not want the FCC anywhere near these editorial decisions and they said so in overwhelming numbers. That consensus extends well beyond the usual voices.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerConservative and free market groups have joined this fight too, warning that turning the license renewal process into a political weapon will not stay pointed in one direction and that the next target could just as easily be a conservative or a religious broadcaster. They are right to worry and I appreciate their willingness to say so. Just yesterday that warning came yet again from the United States Senate. Senator John Kennedy warned that the FCC is getting into the foothills of violating the First Amendment.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerWhen yet another Republican senator is issuing that kind of warning to this agency, it should give every member of this commission pause. This FCC can keep pretending this was all about the public interest, but the public already gave its answer loudly and from every direction. They want this government out of the newsroom. Thank you.

And I'm happy to answer your questions. >> Sure. [Reporter Maggie Rhoads, Capitol Forum, asks how the ownership cap preserves localism given streaming platforms' national reach.] Our local broadcast stations actually serve their local communities and that is where a lot of local journalism stems from. Even when you see on TikTok, usually that starts with a local reporter that's reporting on something local. Um so the national cap helps with that because what it avoids is what we see every time we have these big consolidations and that is the elimination of local reporting um the nationalization of the news. It it starts to get produced and and it stops actually reporting on local news.

You know, even even in the way the commission talks about balancing the power between the networks and and big tech, what they're talking about is making them so big that what you really lose is that local flavor. >> [Reporter Kelcee Griffis, Bloomberg, repeats her earlier question to the Commissioner about large station groups behaving like national networks.] >> Yes. Again, this comes back to my concern about localism, competition, and viewpoint diversity. You lose viewpoint diversity without a doubt. Um because what you're seeing is is news that gets really controlled at the national level.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerSo, I am concerned about that. And and frankly, we have seen this in the past. We know some of these station groups farm out content that is not really changed. It's the exact same thing that gets read in every local news. uh uh um programming throughout the country for that one broadcast station.

So, we've seen this happen before and I am concerned that it will happen again. >> [Reporter John Hendel, Politico, asks about the lasting effects of the Affordable Connectivity Program's funding lapse and prospects for reviving it.] Yeah, I appreciate you raising that. Affordability continues to be uh affordable affordability for broadband continues to be a significant issue um of concern as families are facing affordability concerns all around and what you see is people making tough choices. Can I afford to pay for food? Can I afford to pay for my sitter?

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerOr can I afford to pay pay for broadband? And to participate in today's digital economy, you really need a broadband connection. So, um I I am concerned that we really are not addressing that specific issue in the actions that we're taking. Um and we need to look at that and continue to find ways.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerI now the we have the bipartisan bicameal working group in Congress that is looking at reforming the universal service uh fund program. And in the last Congress, there was a proposal to wrap the ACP into the universal service fund, which I think is an excellent way to handle this issue because while we do have the lifeline program, it's really not sufficient um to um to address all of of the um affordability needs. It's only $9.25 a month. It's clearly not enough to help families actually connect and also there's limitations to the to the uh lifeline program that we did not have under the ACP uh which meant a lot of providers couldn't participate in the program itself.

So we want everyone to be able to participate so that we can get more and more families connected. Um, so I'm hopeful that this will survive this current iteration of the working group and that it will be made part of the universal service fund because then it will be sustainable. >> Thank you. >> [Reporter Arielle Hixson, MS Now, asks whether the large volume of public comments should prompt the FCC to reconsider its actions.] >> Yeah, I I think it's really important to note that we keep talking about or the FCC keeps talking about how it's taking these actions to ensure the public interest. Well, the public has spoken, right? We have actually about 230,000 comments um between the view and the um the early renewal process.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerAnd it these comments all say the same thing. We value our local news. We value the content that we're watching and we don't think it is the FCC's business to decide what is a proper editorial decision or what is actually journalism. Um, so, uh, I do believe that the FCC should basically stop this, uh, uh, action that it is taking, which is clearly designed to address the content that this administration doesn't like in in the Disney network.

Um, and and that I don't think is appropriate under the First Amendment. [Reporter Diego Areas Munhoz, Punchbowl News, asks what Gomez would like Senator Cruz and Congress to do in response.] >> I think um one of the things that all of Congress can do is exercise its oversight um over the FCC. We we answer to the Congress. Um and it would be very helpful if they would u you know exercise their oversight, call us up there so that we can um speak to the actions that this administration is taking and this FCC's been taking. >> [Reporter Howard Buser, Communications Daily, introduces himself.] >> Hi Howard.

I heard you're here again. >> [Reporter asks about recent covered-list actions on routers, drones, and other equipment.] >> robots >> >> [Same reporter asks about industry concerns over the lack of transparency behind covered-list decisions.] >> Yeah. So starting with I think it's very important for us to push back on foreign adversaries and to ensure our national security. But what I'm hearing from a lot of uh American companies and industry leaders is that they're concerned about the haphazard way, the chaotic way in which we've seen the roll out of basically profound changes to the covered list.

If we want to avoid the appearance of favoring certain actors from others, we need transparency. people know and people need to know people need clear guidance um as to which companies we're targeting and how they can come into compliance otherwise with this actually looks like is just industrial policy >> [Same reporter asks whether merger approvals have become easier under this administration and about Gomez being bypassed on votes.] >> I I think you know for me the bigger issue has been how little I've been able to vote on these transactions. I think that this commission has stretched the uh legality of delegated authority to its limit. Um and there have been a lot of transactions that I would have liked to have voted on um as a commissioner.

Um I you know based on today's lifting of the 39% cap it's an invitation to bring in a lot of transactions which apparently are going to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Uh and I'm very curious to see what exactly it is is going to are going to be the uh the uh um um is going to be the test for serving the public interest of a particular merger. I have a suspicion that it might have something to do with the particular parties that are merging uh based on all of the actions that this administration has taken in the media context. >> Thank you, >> [Reporter Ted Johnson, Deadline, asks Gomez to assess the FCC's legal argument for its authority to lift the cap.] >> Yeah, I clearly disagree with the majority's decision on this.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerUm, Congress made abundantly clear in the 2004 law um that it was not only setting the cap, but that we were not permitted to change that cap. And it did so in a number of ways. First of all, it removed the cap from our then biennial review which became the quadrennial review. It said you're not making you're not going to make a decision on whether that particular cap um should be should be changed or lifted because of change circumstances which is which is how we look at the other things.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerUm it also forbade us from forbearing from enforcing the cap. I don't understand how Congress can tell us you can't enforce the cap, but we can also say we can wave the cap. A waiver is essentially forbearing from enforcing a cap, only it's just eliminating it alto together. So there's that.

Commissioner Anna Gomez — verbatim answerUm it I'm trying to think what else it there's numerous things that that that it said. Oh, it requires companies that that go over the cap to come into compliance with the cap within two years. Um, and that's still in the law. So to me, the law is pretty clear that Congress did not um did not foresee us acting as we did pre204 and as the the DC circuit on which this commission relies found that in fact we could have waived the cap previously or lifted the cap uh or set a higher cap previously.

It changed in 2004. [Same reporter asks whether antitrust law can substitute for the ownership cap, citing the Nexstar-Tegna case.] >> You know, antitrust law is very important and I do think that that it it's it applies in the context of of Nexstar-Tegna, but this in um policy choice of protecting localism and viewpoint diversity is not addressed. Competition is, but localism and viewpoint diversity is not addressed by antitrust law. And that is still fundamental to the services that that communities rely on when it comes to their broadcasters. >> Thank you. >> Got nothing. Yeah.

Thank you.