Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Federal Communications Commission
View on Wikipedia
Official seal | |
Logo | |
![]() | |
| Agency overview | |
|---|---|
| Formed | June 19, 1934 |
| Preceding agency | |
| Jurisdiction | Federal government of the United States |
| Headquarters | 45 L Street NE, Washington, D.C., U.S. 38°54′12″N 77°0′26″W / 38.90333°N 77.00722°W |
| Employees | 1,482 (2020) |
| Annual budget | $388 million (FY 2022, requested) |
| Agency executives |
|
| Website | fcc.gov |
| Footnotes | |
| [1][2][3] | |
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, internet, Wi-Fi, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.[4]
The FCC was established pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the previous Federal Radio Commission.[5] The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of the United States. The FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries in North America. The FCC is funded entirely by regulatory fees. It has an estimated fiscal-2022 budget of $388 million.[2] It employs 1,433 federal personnel as of 2022.[update][1]
Mission and agency objectives
[edit]As specified in Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151), the mandate of the FCC is, "to make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."
Furthermore, the Act provides that the FCC was created, "for the purpose of the national defense," and, "for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications."[4]
Organization and procedures
[edit]Commissioners
[edit]The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. No more than three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.[3][6]
After their terms expire, commissioners may continue serving until the appointment of their replacements. However, they may not serve beyond the end of the next session of Congress following term expiration.[7] In practice, this means that commissioners may serve up to 1+1⁄2 years beyond the official term expiration listed above if no replacement is appointed. This would end on the date that Congress adjourns its annual session, generally no later than noon on January 3.
Bureaus
[edit]The FCC is organized into seven bureaus,[8] each headed by a "chief" that is appointed by the chair of the commission. Bureaus process applications for licenses and other filings, analyze complaints, conduct investigations, develop and implement regulations, and participate in hearings.
- The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) develops and implements the FCC's consumer policies, including disability access. CGB serves as the public face of the FCC through outreach and education, as well as through its Consumer Center, which is responsible for responding to consumer inquiries and complaints. CGB also maintains collaborative partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments in such areas as emergency preparedness and implementation of new technologies.
- The Enforcement Bureau (EB) is responsible for enforcement of provisions of the Communications Act 1934, FCC rules, FCC orders, and terms and conditions of station authorizations. Major areas of enforcement that are handled by the Enforcement Bureau are consumer protection, local competition, public safety, and homeland security.
- The Media Bureau (MB) develops, recommends and administers the policy and licensing programs relating to electronic media, including cable television, broadcast television, and radio in the United States and its territories. The Media Bureau also handles post-licensing matters regarding direct broadcast satellite service.
- The Space Bureau (SB) leads policy and licensing matters related to satellite and space-based communications and activities. It will also serve as the commission's liaison to other agencies engaged in space policy. It was created in April 2023 after the former International Bureau (IB) and its functions were divided between the Space Bureau and a new Office of International Affairs.[9]
- The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulates domestic wireless telecommunications programs and policies, including licensing. The bureau also implements competitive bidding for spectrum auctions and regulates wireless communications services including mobile phones, public safety, and other commercial and private radio services.
- The Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) develops policy concerning wire line telecommunications. The Wireline Competition Bureau's main objective is to promote growth and economical investments in wireline technology infrastructure, development, markets, and services.
- The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau was launched in 2006 with a focus on critical communications infrastructure.[10]
Offices
[edit]The FCC has twelve staff offices.[8] The FCC's offices provide support services to the bureaus.
- The Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) is responsible for conducting hearings ordered by the commission. The hearing function includes acting on interlocutory requests filed in the proceedings such as petitions to intervene, petitions to enlarge issues, and contested discovery requests. An administrative law judge, appointed under the Administrative Procedure Act, presides at the hearing during which documents and sworn testimony are received in evidence, and witnesses are cross-examined. At the conclusion of the evidentiary phase of a proceeding, the presiding administrative law judge writes and issues an initial decision that may be appealed to the commission.
- The Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) promotes telecommunications business opportunities for small, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses. OCBO works with entrepreneurs, industry, public interest organizations, individuals, and others to provide information about FCC policies, increase ownership and employment opportunities, foster a diversity of voices and viewpoints over the airwaves, and encourage participation in FCC proceedings.
- The Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) is responsible for expanding and deepening the use of economic analysis into Commission policy making, for enhancing the development and use of auctions, and for implementing consistent and effective agency wide-data practices and policies. It was created in 2018[11] by merging staff from the now defunct Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis with economists dispersed throughout various other offices.
- The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) advises the commission concerning engineering matters.
- Its chief role is to manage the electromagnetic spectrum, specifically frequency allocation and spectrum usage. OET conducts technical studies of advanced phases of terrestrial and space communications and administers FCC rules regarding radio devices, experimental radio services, and industrial, scientific, and medical equipment.
- OET organizes the Technical Advisory Council, a committee of FCC advisors from major telecommunications and media corporations.
- OET operates the Equipment Authorization Branch, which has the task of overseeing equipment authorization for all devices using the electromagnetic energy from 9 kHz to 300 GHz. OET maintains an electronic database of all Certified equipment that can be easily accessed by the public.
- The Office of General Counsel serves as the chief legal adviser to the commission. The general counsel also represents the commission in litigation in United States federal courts, recommends decisions in adjudicatory matters before the commission, assists the commission in its decision-making capacity and performs a variety of legal functions regarding internal and other administrative matters.
- The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommends policies to prevent fraud in agency operations. The inspector general recommends corrective action where appropriate, referring criminal matters to the United States Department of Justice for potential prosecution.
- The Office of International Affairs (OIA) is responsible for the commission's engagement in foreign and international regulatory authorities, including multilateral and regional organizations. OIA will also facilitate through rulemaking and licensing the commission's development of policies regarding international telecommunications facilities and services as well as submarine cables, and advise the commission on foreign ownership issues.
- The Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) is the FCC's liaison to the United States Congress, providing lawmakers with information about FCC regulations. OLA also prepares FCC witnesses for congressional hearings, and helps create FCC responses to legislative proposals and congressional inquiries. In addition, OLA is a liaison to other federal agencies, as well as state and local governments.
- The Office of the Managing Director (OMD) is responsible for the administration and management of the FCC, including the agency's budget, personnel, security, contracts, and publications.
- The Office of Media Relations (OMR) is responsible for the dissemination of commission announcements, orders, proceedings, and other information per media requests. OMR manages the FCC Daily Digest, website, and Audio Visual Center.
- The Office of the Secretary (OSEC) oversees the receipt and distribution of documents filed by the public through electronic and paper filing systems and the FCC Library collection. In addition, OSEC publishes legal notices of commission decisions in the Federal Register and the FCC Record.
- The Office of Workplace Diversity (OWD) develops policy to provide a full and fair opportunity for all employees, regardless of non-merit factors such as race, religion, gender, color, age, disability, sexual orientation or national origin, to carry out their duties in the workplace free from unlawful discriminatory treatment, including sexual harassment and retaliation for engaging in legally protected activities.
Headquarters
[edit]
The FCC leases space in the Sentinel Square III building in northeast Washington, D.C.[12][13]
Prior to moving to its new headquarters in October 2020, the FCC leased space in the Portals building in southwest Washington, D.C. Construction of the Portals building was scheduled to begin on March 1, 1996. In January 1996, the General Services Administration signed a lease with the building's owners, agreeing to let the FCC lease 450,000 sq ft (42,000 m2) of space in Portals for 20 years, at a cost of $17.3 million per year in 1996 dollars. Prior to the Portals, the FCC had space in six buildings at and around 19th Street NW and M Street NW. The FCC first solicited bids for a new headquarters complex in 1989. In 1991 the GSA selected the Portals site. The FCC had wanted to move into a more expensive area along Pennsylvania Avenue.[14]
History
[edit]

Communications Act of 1934
[edit]On February 26, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt recommended the creation of the Federal Communications Commission. In 1934, Congress passed the Communications Act, which abolished the Federal Radio Commission and transferred jurisdiction over radio licensing to a new Federal Communications Commission, including in it also the telecommunications jurisdiction previously handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission.[15][16]
Title II of the Communications Act focused on telecommunications using many concepts borrowed from railroad legislation and Title III contained provisions very similar to the Radio Act of 1927.
The initial organization of the FCC was effected July 17, 1934, in three divisions, Broadcasting, Telegraph, and Telephone. Each division was led by two of the seven commissioners, with the FCC chairman being a member of each division. The organizing meeting directed the divisions to meet on July 18, July 19, and July 20, respectively.[17]
Report on Chain Broadcasting
[edit]In 1941, the Federal Communications Commission issued the "Report on Chain Broadcasting" which was led by new FCC chairman James Lawrence Fly (and Telford Taylor as general counsel). The major point in the report was the breakup of the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), which ultimately led to the creation of the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), but there were two other important points. One was network option time, the culprit here being the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS). The report limited the amount of time during the day and at what times the networks may broadcast. Previously a network could demand any time it wanted from a Network affiliate. The second concerned artist bureaus. The networks served as both agents and employers of artists, which was a conflict of interest the report rectified.[18]
Freeze of 1948
[edit]
In assigning television stations to various cities after World War II, the FCC found that it placed many stations too close to each other, resulting in interference. At the same time, it became clear that the designated VHF channels, 2 through 13, were inadequate for nationwide television service.[19] As a result, the FCC stopped giving out construction permits for new licenses in October 1948, under the direction of Chairman Rosel H. Hyde. Most expected this "Freeze" to last six months, but as the allocation of channels to the emerging UHF technology and the eagerly awaited possibilities of color television were debated, the FCC's re-allocation map of stations did not come until April 1952, with July 1, 1952, as the official beginning of licensing new stations.
Other FCC actions hurt the fledgling DuMont and ABC networks. American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) forced television coaxial cable users to rent additional radio long lines, discriminating against DuMont, which had no radio network operation. DuMont and ABC protested AT&T's television policies to the FCC, which regulated AT&T's long-line charges, but the commission took no action. The result was that financially marginal DuMont was spending as much in long-line charge as CBS or NBC while using only about 10 to 15 percent of the time and mileage of either larger network.[20]
The FCC's Sixth Report and Order ended the Freeze in 1952.[21] It took five years for the US to grow from 108 stations to more than 550. New stations came online slowly, only five by the end of November 1952. The Sixth Report and Order required some existing television stations to change channels, but only a few existing VHF stations were required to move to UHF, and a handful of VHF channels were deleted altogether in smaller media markets like Peoria, Fresno, Bakersfield and Fort Wayne, Indiana to create markets which were UHF "islands". The report also set aside a number of channels for the newly emerging field of educational television, which hindered struggling ABC and DuMont's quest for affiliates in the more desirable markets where VHF channels were reserved for non-commercial use.
The Sixth Report and Order also provided for the "intermixture" of VHF and UHF channels in most markets; UHF transmitters in the 1950s were not yet powerful enough, nor receivers sensitive enough (if they included UHF tuners at all; they were not formally required until the 1960s All-Channel Receiver Act), to make UHF viable against entrenched VHF stations. In markets where there were no VHF stations and UHF was the only TV service available, UHF survived. In other markets, which were too small to financially support a television station, too close to VHF outlets in nearby cities, or where UHF was forced to compete with more than one well-established VHF station, UHF had little chance for success.
Denver had been the largest U.S. city without a TV station by 1952. Senator Edwin Johnson (D-Colorado), chair of the Senate's Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, had made it his personal mission to make Denver the first post-Freeze station. The senator had pressured the FCC, and proved ultimately successful as the first new station (a VHF station) came on-line a remarkable ten days after the commission formally announced the first post-Freeze construction permits. KFEL (now KWGN-TV)'s first regular telecast was on July 21, 1952.[22][23]
Telecommunications Act of 1996
[edit]In 1996, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in the wake of the breakup of AT&T resulting from the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust suit against AT&T. The legislation attempted to create more competition in local telephone service by requiring Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers to provide access to their facilities for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. This policy has thus far had limited success and much criticism.[24]
The development of the Internet, cable services and wireless services has raised questions whether new legislative initiatives are needed as to competition in what has come to be called 'broadband' services. Congress has monitored developments but as of 2009 has not undertaken a major revision of applicable regulation. The Local Community Radio Act in the 111th Congress has gotten out of committee and will go before the house floor with bi-partisan support,[25] and unanimous support of the FCC.[26]
By passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress also eliminated the cap on the number of radio stations any one entity could own nationwide and also substantially loosened local radio station ownership restrictions. Substantial radio consolidation followed.[27] Restrictions on ownership of television stations were also loosened.[28] Public comments to the FCC indicated that the public largely believed that the severe consolidation of media ownership had resulted in harm to diversity, localism, and competition in media, and was harmful to the public interest.[29]
Modernization of the FCC's information technology systems
[edit]David A. Bray joined the commission in 2013 as chief information officer and quickly announced goals of modernizing the FCC's legacy information technology (IT) systems, citing 200 different systems for only 1750 people a situation he found "perplexing".[30][31] These efforts later were documented in a 2015 Harvard Case Study.[32][33] In 2017, Christine Calvosa replaced Bray as the acting CIO of FCC.[34]
2023 reorganization and Space Bureau establishment
[edit]On January 4, 2023, the FCC voted unanimously to create a newly formed Space Bureau and Office of International Affairs within the agency, replacing the existing International Bureau. FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel explained that the move was done to improve the FCC's "coordination across the federal government" and to "support the 21st-century satellite industry."[35] The decision to establish the Space Bureau was reportedly done to improve the agency's capacity to regulate Satellite Internet access.[36] The new bureau officially launched on April 11, 2023.[37]
FCC Review of Rules on Network Mergers (2025-present)
[edit]On September 30, 2025, The FCC launched a new review of its media ownership limits, amid broadcasters’ lobbying push to modernize the restrictions in the face of competition from tech giants. The agency voted to take public comment, including on a rule that limits a company from owning more than two stations in a market, and a restriction on mergers between any two of the four major broadcast networks.[38]
Commissioners
[edit]The commissioners of the FCC as of June 23, 2025[update]:
| Name | Party | Term started | Term expires | Max. extended time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brendan Carr (Chair) | Republican | August 11, 2017 | June 30, 2028 | Jan. 3, 2030 |
| Anna M. Gomez | Democratic | September 25, 2023 | June 30, 2026 | Jan. 3, 2028 |
| Olivia Trusty | Republican | June 23, 2025 | June 30, 2030 | Jan. 3, 2032 |
| Vacant | June 30, 2027 | Jan. 3, 2029 | ||
| Vacant | June 30, 2029 | Jan. 3, 2031 |
The initial group of FCC commissioners after establishment of the commission in 1934 comprised the following seven members:[17][39]
| Commissioner | State | Party | Position | Term started | Term ended | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eugene O. Sykes | Mississippi | Democratic | Chairman | [40] | July 11, 1934 | April 5, 1939 |
| Thad H. Brown | Ohio | Republican | Commissioner | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1940 | |
| Paul A. Walker | Oklahoma | Democratic | Commissioner | [41] | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1953 |
| Norman S. Case | Rhode Island | Republican | Commissioner | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1937 | |
| Irvin Stewart | Texas | Democratic | Commissioner | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1937 | |
| George Henry Payne | New York | Republican | Commissioner | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1943 | |
| Hampson Gary | Texas | Democratic | Commissioner | July 11, 1934 | January 1, 1935 | |
The complete list of commissioners is available on the FCC website.[39] Frieda B. Hennock (D-NY) was the first female commissioner of the FCC in 1948.
| Name | Party | Term started | Term expired |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eugene Octave Sykes | Democratic | July 11, 1934 | April 5, 1939 |
| Thad H. Brown | Republican | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1940 |
| Paul A. Walker | Democratic | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1953 |
| Norman S. Case | Republican | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1937 |
| Irvin Stewart | Democratic | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1937 |
| George Henry Payne | Republican | July 11, 1934 | June 30, 1943 |
| Hampson Gary | Democratic | July 11, 1934 | January 1, 1935 |
| Anning Smith Prall | January 17, 1935 | July 23, 1937 | |
| T.A.M. Craven | August 25, 1937 | June 30, 1944 | |
| July 2, 1956 | March 25, 1963 | ||
| Frank R. McNinch | October 1, 1937 | August 31, 1939 | |
| Frederick I. Thompson | April 13, 1939 | June 30, 1941 | |
| James Lawrence Fly | September 1, 1939 | November 13, 1944 | |
| Ray C. Wakefield | Republican | March 22, 1941 | June 30, 1947 |
| Clifford Durr | Democratic | November 1, 1941 | June 30, 1948 |
| E. K. Jett | Independent | February 15, 1944 | December 31, 1947 |
| Paul A. Porter | Democratic | December 21, 1944 | February 25, 1946 |
| Charles R. Denny | March 30, 1945 | October 31, 1947 | |
| William Henry Wills | Republican | July 23, 1945 | March 6, 1946 |
| Rosel H. Hyde | April 17, 1946 | October 31, 1969 | |
| Edward M. Webster | Independent | April 10, 1947 | June 30, 1956 |
| Robert Franklin Jones | Republican | September 5, 1947 | September 19, 1952 |
| Wayne Coy | Democratic | December 29, 1947 | February 21, 1952 |
| George E. Sterling | Republican | January 2, 1948 | September 30, 1954 |
| Frieda B. Hennock | Democratic | July 6, 1948 | June 30, 1955 |
| Robert T. Bartley | March 6, 1952 | June 30, 1972 | |
| Eugene H. Merrill | October 6, 1952 | April 15, 1953 | |
| John C. Doerfer | Republican | April 15, 1953 | March 10, 1960 |
| Robert E. Lee | October 6, 1953 | June 30, 1981 | |
| George McConnaughey | October 4, 1954 | June 30, 1957 | |
| Frederick W. Ford | August 29, 1957 | December 31, 1964 | |
| John S. Cross | Democratic | May 23, 1958 | September 30, 1962 |
| Charles H. King | Republican | July 19, 1960 | March 2, 1961 |
| Newton N. Minow | Democratic | March 2, 1961 | June 1, 1963 |
| E. William Henry | October 2, 1962 | May 1, 1966 | |
| Kenneth A. Cox | March 26, 1963 | August 31, 1970 | |
| Lee Loevinger | June 11, 1963 | June 30, 1968 | |
| James Jeremiah Wadsworth | Republican | May 5, 1965 | October 31, 1969 |
| Nicholas Johnson | Democratic | July 1, 1966 | December 5, 1973 |
| H. Rex Lee | October 28, 1968 | December 5, 1973 | |
| Dean Burch | Republican | October 31, 1969 | March 8, 1974 |
| Robert Wells | November 6, 1969 | November 1, 1971 | |
| Thomas J. Houser | January 6, 1971 | October 5, 1971 | |
| Charlotte Thompson Reid | October 8, 1971 | July 1, 1976 | |
| Richard E. Wiley | January 5, 1972 | October 13, 1977 | |
| Benjamin Hooks | Democratic | July 5, 1972 | July 25, 1977 |
| James Henry Quello | April 30, 1974 | November 1, 1997 | |
| Glen O. Robinson | July 10, 1974 | August 30, 1976 | |
| Abbott M. Washburn | Republican | July 10, 1974 | October 1, 1982 |
| Joseph R. Fogarty | Democratic | September 17, 1976 | June 30, 1983 |
| Margita White | Republican | September 23, 1976 | February 28, 1979 |
| Charles D. Ferris | Democratic | October 17, 1977 | April 10, 1981 |
| Tyrone Brown | November 15, 1977 | January 31, 1981 | |
| Anne P. Jones | Republican | April 7, 1979 | May 31, 1983 |
| Mark S. Fowler | May 18, 1981 | April 17, 1987 | |
| Mimi Weyforth Dawson | July 6, 1981 | December 3, 1987 | |
| Henry M. Rivera | Democratic | August 10, 1981 | September 15, 1985 |
| Stephen A. Sharp | Republican | October 4, 1982 | June 30, 1983 |
| Dennis R. Patrick | December 2, 1983 | April 17, 1987 | |
| Patricia Diaz Dennis | Democratic | June 25, 1986 | September 29, 1989 |
| Alfred C. Sikes | Republican | August 8, 1989 | January 19, 1993 |
| Sherrie P. Marshall | August 21, 1989 | April 30, 1993 | |
| Andrew C. Barrett | September 8, 1989 | March 30, 1996 | |
| Ervin Duggan | Democratic | February 28, 1990 | January 30, 1994 |
| Reed Hundt | November 29, 1993 | November 3, 1997 | |
| Susan Ness | May 19, 1994 | May 30, 2001 | |
| Rachelle B. Chong | Republican | May 23, 1994 | November 3, 1997 |
| William Kennard | Democratic | November 3, 1997 | January 19, 2001 |
| Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth | Republican | November 3, 1997 | May 30, 2001 |
| Michael Powell | November 3, 1997 | March 17, 2005 | |
| Gloria Tristani | Democratic | November 3, 1997 | September 7, 2001 |
| Kathleen Q. Abernathy | Republican | May 31, 2001 | December 9, 2005 |
| Michael Copps | Democratic | May 31, 2001 | December 31, 2011 |
| Kevin Martin | Republican | July 3, 2001 | January 19, 2009 |
| Jonathan Adelstein | Democratic | December 3, 2002 | June 29, 2009 |
| Deborah Tate | Republican | January 3, 2006 | January 3, 2009 |
| Robert M. McDowell | June 1, 2006 | May 17, 2013 | |
| Julius Genachowski | Democratic | June 29, 2009 | May 17, 2013 |
| Meredith Attwell Baker | Republican | July 31, 2009 | June 3, 2011 |
| Mignon Clyburn | Democratic | August 3, 2009 | June 6, 2018 |
| Jessica Rosenworcel | May 11, 2012 | January 3, 2017 | |
| August 11, 2017 | January 20, 2025 | ||
| Ajit Pai | Republican | May 14, 2012 | January 20, 2021 |
| Tom Wheeler | Democratic | November 4, 2013 | January 20, 2017 |
| Michael O'Rielly | Republican | November 4, 2013 | December 11, 2020 |
| Brendan Carr | August 11, 2017 | Present | |
| Geoffrey Starks | Democratic | January 30, 2019 | June 6, 2025 |
| Nathan Simington | Republican | December 14, 2020 | June 6, 2025 |
| Anna M. Gomez | Democratic | September 25, 2023 | Present |
| Olivia Trusty | Republican | June 23, 2025 | Present |
Media policy
[edit]Broadcast radio and television
[edit]The FCC regulates broadcast stations, repeater stations as well as commercial broadcasting operators who operate and repair certain radiotelephone, radio and television stations. Broadcast licenses are to be renewed if the station meets the "public interest, convenience, or necessity".[42] The FCC's enforcement powers include fines and broadcast license revocation (see FCC MB Docket 04-232). Burden of proof would be on the complainant in a petition to deny.
Cable and satellite
[edit]The FCC first promulgated rules for cable television in 1965, with cable and satellite television now regulated by the FCC under Title VI of the Communications Act. Congress added Title VI in the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, and made substantial modifications to Title VI in the Cable Television and Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Further modifications to promote cross-modal competition (telephone, video, etc.) were made in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, leading to the current regulatory structure.[43]
Content regulation and indecency
[edit]Broadcast television and radio stations are subject to FCC regulations including restrictions against indecency or obscenity. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held, beginning soon after the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, that the inherent scarcity of radio spectrum allows the government to impose some types of content restrictions on broadcast license holders notwithstanding the First Amendment.[44] Cable and satellite providers are also subject to some content regulations under Title VI of the Communications Act such as the prohibition on obscenity, although the limitations are not as restrictive compared to broadcast stations.[45]
The 1981 inauguration of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States accelerated an already ongoing shift in the FCC towards a decidedly more market-oriented stance. A number of regulations felt to be outdated were removed, most controversially the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
In terms of indecency fines, the FCC took no action on the case FCC v. Pacifica until 1987, about ten years after the landmark United States Supreme Court decision that defined the power of the FCC over indecent material as applied to broadcasting.[46][47]
After the 1990s had passed, the FCC began to increase its censorship and enforcement of indecency regulations in the early 2000s to include a response to the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" that occurred during the halftime show of Super Bowl XXXVIII.[48]
Then on June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 sponsored by then-Senator Sam Brownback, a former broadcaster himself, and endorsed by Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan who authored a similar bill in the United States House of Representatives. The new law stiffened the penalties for each violation of the Act. The Federal Communications Commission was empowered to fines in the amount of $325,000 for each violation by each station that violated decency standards. The legislation raised the fine ten times over the previous maximum of $32,500 per violation.[49][50]
Media ownership
[edit]The FCC has established rules limiting the national share of media ownership of broadcast radio or television stations. It has also established cross-ownership rules limiting ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market, in order to ensure a diversity of viewpoints in each market and serve the needs of each local market.
Diversity
[edit]In the second half of 2006, groups such as the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the National Latino Media Council, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the National Institute for Latino Policy, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and others held town hall meetings[51] in California, New York and Texas on media diversity as its effects Latinos and minority communities. They documented widespread and deeply felt community concerns about the negative effects of media concentration and consolidation on racial-ethnic diversity in staffing and programming.[52] At these Latino town hall meetings, the issue of the FCC's lax monitoring of obscene and pornographic material in Spanish-language radio and the lack of racial and national-origin diversity among Latino staff in Spanish-language television were other major themes.
President Barack Obama appointed Mark Lloyd to the FCC in the newly created post of associate general counsel/chief diversity officer.[53]
Localism
[edit]Numerous controversies have surrounded the city of license concept as the internet has made it possible to broadcast a single signal to every owned station in the nation at once, particularly when Clear Channel, now IHeartMedia, became the largest FM broadcasting corporation in the US after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law - owning over 1,200 stations at its peak. As part of its license to buy more radio stations, Clear Channel was forced to divest all TV stations.[citation needed]
Digital television transition
[edit]To facilitate the adoption of digital television, the FCC issued a second digital TV (DTV) channel to each holder of an analog TV station license. All stations were required to buy and install all new equipment (transmitters, TV antennas, and even entirely new broadcast towers), and operate for years on both channels. Each licensee was required to return one of their two channels following the end of the digital television transition.[citation needed]
After delaying the original deadlines of 2006, 2008, and eventually February 17, 2009, on concerns about elderly and rural folk, on June 12, 2009, all full-power analog terrestrial TV licenses in the U.S. were terminated as part of the DTV transition, leaving terrestrial television available only from digital channels and a few low-power LPTV stations. To help U.S. consumers through the conversion, Congress established a federally sponsored DTV Converter Box Coupon Program for two free converters per household.[citation needed]
Wireline policy
[edit]The FCC regulates telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II imposes common carrier regulation under which carriers offering their services to the general public must provide services to all customers and may not discriminate based on the identity of the customer or the content of the communication. This is similar to and adapted from the regulation of transportation providers (railroad, airline, shipping, etc.) and some public utilities. Wireless carriers providing telecommunications services are also generally subject to Title II regulation except as exempted by the FCC.[54]
Telephone
[edit]The FCC regulates interstate telephone services under Title II. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major legislative reform since the 1934 act and took several steps to de-regulate the telephone market and promote competition in both the local and long-distance marketplace.
From monopoly to competition
[edit]The important relationship of the FCC and the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Company evolved over the decades. For many years, the FCC and state officials agreed to regulate the telephone system as a natural monopoly.[55] The FCC controlled telephone rates and imposed other restrictions under Title II to limit the profits of AT&T and ensure nondiscriminatory pricing.
In the 1960s, the FCC began allowing other long-distance companies, namely MCI, to offer specialized services. In the 1970s, the FCC allowed other companies to expand offerings to the public.[56] A lawsuit in 1982 led by the Justice Department after AT&T underpriced other companies, resulted in the breakup of the Bell System from AT&T. Beginning in 1984, the FCC implemented a new goal that all long-distance companies had equal access to the local phone companies' customers.[57] Effective January 1, 1984, the Bell System's many member-companies were variously merged into seven independent "Regional Holding Companies", also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". This divestiture reduced the book value of AT&T by approximately 70%.[58]
Internet
[edit]The FCC initially exempted "information services" such as broadband Internet access from regulation under Title II. The FCC held that information services were distinct from telecommunications services that are subject to common carrier regulation.
However, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the FCC to help accelerate deployment of "advanced telecommunications capability" which included high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video, and to regularly assess its availability. In August 2015, the FCC said that nearly 55 million Americans did not have access to broadband capable of delivering high-quality voice, data, graphics and video offerings.[59]
On February 26, 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, thus subjecting it to Title II regulation, although several exemptions were also created. The reclassification was done in order to give the FCC a legal basis for imposing net neutrality rules (see below), after earlier attempts to impose such rules on an "information service" had been overturned in court.
Net neutrality
[edit]In 2005, the FCC formally established the following principles: To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. However, broadband providers were permitted to engage in "reasonable network management".[60]
On August 1, 2008, the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software. The FCC imposed no fine, but required Comcast to end such blocking in 2008. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason. In an interview Martin stated that "We are preserving the open character of the Internet" and "We are saying that network operators can't block people from getting access to any content and any applications." Martin's successor, Julius Genachowski has maintained that the FCC has no plans to regulate the internet, saying: "I've been clear repeatedly that we're not going to regulate the Internet."[61] The Comcast case highlighted broader issues of whether new legislation is needed to force Internet providers to maintain net neutrality, i.e. treat all uses of their networks equally. The legal complaint against Comcast related to BitTorrent, software that is commonly used for downloading larger files.[62]
In December 2010, the FCC revised the principles from the original Internet policy statement and adopted the Open Internet Order consisting of three rules[63] regarding the Internet: Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services; No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and No unreasonable discrimination.
On January 14, 2014, Verizon won its lawsuit over the FCC in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Court. Verizon was suing over increased regulation on internet service providers on the grounds that "even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such."[64]
After these setbacks in court, in April 2014 the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding a path forward for The Open Internet Order. On November 10, 2014, President Obama created a YouTube video[65] recommending that the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.[66][67][68]
On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the Internet.[69][70][71]
The rules prompted debate about the applicability of First Amendment protections to Internet service providers and edge providers. Republican commissioner Ajit Pai said the Open Internet Order "posed a special danger" to "First Amendment speech, freedom of expression, [and] even freedom of association."[72] Democratic member and then-Chairman Tom Wheeler said in response that the rules were "no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."[73] According to a Washington Post poll, 81% of Americans supported net neutrality in 2014, with 81% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans saying they opposed allowing Internet providers to charge websites for faster speeds.[74]
On March 12, 2015, the FCC released the specific details of the net neutrality rules.[75][76][77] On April 13, 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new "Net Neutrality" regulations.[78][79]
On April 27, 2017, FCC chairman Ajit Pai released a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would revise the legal foundation for the agency's Open Internet regulations. The NPRM was voted on at the May 18th Open Meeting.[80] On December 14, the commission voted 3–2 in favor of passing the repeal of the 2015 rules.[81] The repeal formally took effect on June 11, 2018, when the 2015 rules expired.[82][83]
However, in April 2024, the FCC re-adopted the net neutrality rules by 3–2 vote, prohibiting internet service providers from blocking or limiting user access, reviving the regulations repealed in 2017.[84] On January 2, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to adopt net neutrality regulations. The court held that the regulations violated federal law because broadband Internet service providers are classified as information service providers, not telecommunications service providers.[85][86]
NSA wiretapping
[edit]When it emerged in 2006 that AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon may have broken U.S. laws by aiding the National Security Agency in possible illegal wiretapping of its customers, Congressional representatives called for an FCC investigation into whether or not those companies broke the law. The FCC declined to investigate, however, claiming that it could not investigate due to the classified nature of the program – a move that provoked the criticism of members of Congress.[citation needed]
"Today the watchdog agency that oversees the country's telecommunications industry refused to investigate the nation's largest phone companies' reported disclosure of phone records to the NSA", said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in response to the decision. "The FCC, which oversees the protection of consumer privacy under the Communications Act of 1934, has taken a pass at investigating what is estimated to be the nation's largest violation of consumer privacy ever to occur. If the oversight body that monitors our nation's communications is stepping aside then Congress must step in."[87]
Wireless policy
[edit]The FCC regulates all non-Federal uses of radio frequency spectrum in the United States under Title III of the Communications Act of 1934. In addition to over-the-air broadcast television and radio stations, this includes commercial mobile (i.e., mobile phone) services, amateur radio, citizen's band radio, theatrical wireless microphone installations, and a very wide variety of other services. Use of radio spectrum by U.S. federal government agencies is coordinated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency within the Department of Commerce.[citation needed]
Commercial mobile service
[edit]Commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers, including all mobile phone carriers, are subject to spectrum and wireless regulations under Title III (similar to broadcasters) as well as common carrier regulations under Title II (similar to wireline telephone carriers), except as provided by the FCC.[54]
Spectrum auctions
[edit]Beginning in 1994, the FCC has usually assigned commercial spectrum licenses through the use of competitive bidding, i.e., spectrum auctions. These auctions have raised tens of billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury, and the FCC's auction approach is now widely emulated throughout the world. The FCC typically obtains spectrum for auction that has been reclaimed from other uses, such as spectrum returned by television broadcasters after the digital television transition, or spectrum made available by federal agencies able to shift their operations to other bands.[citation needed]
Unlicensed spectrum
[edit]Normally, any intentional radio transmission requires an FCC license pursuant to Title III. However, in recent decades the FCC has also opened some spectrum bands for unlicensed operations, typically restricting them to low power levels conducive to short-range applications. This has facilitated the development of a very wide range of common technologies from wireless garage door openers, cordless phones, and baby monitors to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth among others. However, unlicensed devices — like most radio transmission equipment — must still receive technical approval from the FCC before being sold into the marketplace, including ensuring that such devices cannot be modified by end users to increase transmit power above FCC limits.[citation needed]
White spaces
[edit]"White spaces" are radio frequencies that went unused after the federally mandated transformation of analog TV signals to digital. On October 15, 2008, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced his support for the unlicensed use of white spaces. Martin said he was "hoping to take advantage of utilizing these airwaves for broadband services to allow for unlicensed technologies and new innovations in that space."[88]
Google, Microsoft and other companies are vying for the use of this white-space to support innovation in Wi-Fi technology. Broadcasters and wireless microphone manufacturers fear that the use of white space would "disrupt their broadcasts and the signals used in sports events and concerts."[89][better source needed] Cell phone providers such as T-Mobile US have mounted pressure on the FCC to instead offer up the white space for sale to boost competition and market leverage.
On November 4, 2008, the FCC commissioners unanimously agreed to open up unused broadcast TV spectrum for unlicensed use.[90][91]
Amateur radio
[edit]Amateur radio operators in the United States must be licensed by the FCC before transmitting. While the FCC maintains control of the written testing standards, it no longer administers the exams, having delegated that function to private volunteer organizations.[92] No amateur license class requires examination in Morse code; neither the FCC nor the volunteer organizations test code skills for amateur licenses.[93]
Broadcasting tower database
[edit]An FCC database provides information about the height and year built of broadcasting towers in the US.[94] It does not contain information about the structural types of towers or about the height of towers used by Federal agencies, such as most NDBs, LORAN-C transmission towers or VLF transmission facilities of the US Navy, or about most towers not used for transmission like the BREN Tower. These are instead tracked by the Federal Aviation Administration as obstructions to air navigation.
Criticism for use of proprietary standards
[edit]In 2023, Andrew Tisinger criticized the FCC for ignoring international open standards, and instead choosing proprietary closed standards, or allowing communications companies to do so and implement the anticompetitive practice of vendor lock-in.[95]
In the case of digital TV, it chose the ATSC standard, even though DVB was already in use around the world, including DVB-S satellite TV in the U.S. Unlike competing standards, the ATSC system is encumbered by numerous patents, and therefore royalties that make TV sets and DTV converters much more expensive than in the rest of the world. Additionally, the claimed benefit of better reception in rural areas is more than negated in urban areas by multipath interference, which other systems are nearly immune to. It also cannot be received while in motion for this reason, while all other systems can, even without dedicated mobile TV signals or receivers.[citation needed]
For digital radio, the FCC chose proprietary HD Radio, which crowds the existing FM broadcast band and even AM broadcast band with in-band adjacent-channel sidebands, which create noise in other stations. This is in contrast to worldwide DAB, which uses unused TV channels in the VHF band III range. This too has patent fees, while DAB does not. While there has been some effort by iBiquity to lower them,[96] the fees for HD Radio are still an enormous expense when converting each station, and this fee structure presents a potentially high cost barrier to entry for community radio and other non-commercial educational stations when entering the HD Radio market.[97] (Under the subsidiary communications authority principle, FM stations could in theory use any in-band on-channel digital system of their choosing; a competing service, FMeXtra, briefly gained some traction in the early 21st century but has since been discontinued.)
Satellite radio (also called SDARS by the FCC) uses two proprietary standards instead of DAB-S, which requires users to change equipment when switching from one provider to the other, and prevents other competitors from offering new choices as stations can do on terrestrial radio. Had the FCC picked DAB-T for terrestrial radio, no separate satellite receiver would have been needed at all, and the only difference from DAB receivers in the rest of the world would be the need to tune S band instead of L band.[citation needed]
In mobile telephony, the FCC abandoned the "any lawful device" principle[failed verification] decided against AT&T landlines, and has instead allowed each mobile phone company to dictate what its customers can use.[98][99]
Public consultation
[edit]As the public interest standard has always been important to the FCC when determining and shaping policy, so too has the relevance of public involvement in U.S. communication policy making.[100] The FCC Record is the comprehensive compilation of decisions, reports, public notices, and other documents of the FCC, published since 1986.[101][102]
History of the issue
[edit]1927 Radio Act
[edit]In the 1927 Radio Act, which was formulated by the predecessor of the FCC (the Federal Radio Commission), section 4(k) stipulated that the commission was authorized to hold hearings for the purpose of developing a greater understanding of the issues for which rules were being crafted. Section 4(k) stated that:
- Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the commission, from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall... have the authority to hold hearings, summon witnesses, administer oaths, compel the production of books, documents, and papers and to make such investigations as may be necessary in the performance of its duties.
Thus, it is clear that public consultation, or at least consultation with outside bodies was regarded as central to the commission's job from early on. Though it should not be surprising, the act also stipulated that the commission should verbally communicate with those being assigned licenses. Section 11 of the act noted:
- If upon examination of any application for a station license or for the renewal or modification of a station license the licensing authority shall determine that public interest, convenience, or necessity would be served by the granting thereof, it shall authorize the issuance, renewal, or modification thereof in accordance with said finding. In the event the licensing authority upon examination of any such application does not reach such decision with respect thereto, it shall notify the applicant thereof, shall fix and give notice of a time and place for hearing thereon, and shall afford such applicant an opportunity to be heard under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe.
Public hearings
[edit]As early as 1927, there is evidence that public hearings were indeed held; among them, hearings to assess the expansion of the radio broadcast band.[103] At these early hearings, the goal of having a broad range of viewpoints presented was evident, as not only broadcasters, but also radio engineers and manufacturers were in attendance. Numerous groups representing the general public appeared at the hearings as well, including amateur radio operators and inventors as well as representatives of radio listeners' organizations.
While some speakers at the 1927 hearings referred to having received "invitations", Herbert Hoover's assistant observed in a letter at the time that "the Radio Commission has sent out a blanket invitation to all people in the country who desire either to appear in person or to submit their recommendations in writing. I do not understand that the commission has sent for any particular individuals, however" [Letter from George Akerson, assistant to Sec. Hoover, to Mrs. James T. Rourke, Box 497, Commerce Period Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library (March 29, 1927)] (FN 14)[103]
Including members of the general public in the discussion was regarded (or at least articulated) as very important to the commission's deliberations. In fact, FCC commissioner Bellows noted at the time that "it is the radio listener we must consider above everyone else."[103] Though there were numerous representatives of the general public at the hearing, some expressing their opinions to the commission verbally, overall there was not a great turnout of everyday listeners at the hearings.
Though not a constant fixture of the communications policy-making process, public hearings were occasionally organized as a part of various deliberation processes as the years progressed. For example, seven years after the enactment of the Radio Act, the Communications Act of 1934 was passed, creating the FCC. That year the federal government's National Recovery Agency (associated with the New Deal period) held public hearings as a part of its deliberations over the creation of new broadcasting codes.[104]
A few years later [when?], the FCC held hearings to address early cross-ownership issues; specifically, whether newspaper companies owning radio stations was in the public interest.[105] These "newspaper divorcement hearings" were held between 1941 and 1944, though it appears that these hearings were geared mostly towards discussion by industry stakeholders. Around the same time, the commission held hearings as a part of its evaluation of the national television standard,[106] and in 1958 held additional hearings on the television network broadcasting rules.[107] Though public hearings were organized somewhat infrequently, there was an obvious public appeal. In his now famous "vast wasteland" speech in 1961, FCC chairman Newton Minow noted that the commission would hold a "well advertised public hearing" in each community to assure broadcasters were serving the public interest,[108] clearly a move to reconnect the commission with the public interest (at least rhetorically).
On September 5, 2023, commissioner Nathan Simington held a public forum on the tech-focused social news site, Hacker News.[109]
See also
[edit]Media policy
[edit]- 1978 Broadcast Policy Statement on minority ownership
- Bleep censor
- Broadcast Standards and Practices (US)
- Censorship of broadcasting in the United States
- Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
- Public, educational, and government access (PEG)
Wireline/broadband policy
[edit]Wireless policy
[edit]International
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b "Employee Profile at the FCC". Federal Communications Commission. Archived from the original on March 5, 2025. Retrieved March 27, 2025.
- ^ a b 2022 Budget Estimate Archived January 15, 2022, at the Wayback Machine FCC Budget Estimates (PDF). FCC.
- ^ a b Cecilia Kang (October 31, 2011). "Obama names FCC commissioners, both agency, Hill veterans". The Washington Post; Post Tech. Archived from the original on December 28, 2014. Retrieved November 1, 2011.
- ^ a b "2008 Performance and Accountability Report" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. September 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 11, 2015. Retrieved July 12, 2017.
- ^ "The Communications Act of 1934". Bureau of Justice Assistance. Archived from the original on March 23, 2022. Retrieved March 19, 2022.
- ^ "FCC Commissioners". FCC. Archived from the original on July 14, 2007. Retrieved July 18, 2007.
- ^ "47 USC 154(c)". Archived from the original on April 15, 2020. Retrieved April 30, 2020.
- ^ a b "FCC Bureaus & Offices". Archived from the original on November 16, 2015. Retrieved December 10, 2021.
- ^ "FCC Space Bureau & Office of International Affairs Launches April 11". FCC. Federal Communications Commission. April 7, 2023. Retrieved April 18, 2023.
- ^ "FCC Opens Bureau of Public Safety and Homeland Security". PCMAG. Archived from the original on November 20, 2015. Retrieved November 19, 2015.
- ^ "FCC Opens Office of Economics and Analytics". December 11, 2018. Archived from the original on December 10, 2021. Retrieved December 10, 2021.
- ^ Nelson, John (January 19, 2017). "Trammell Crow Inks 473,000 SF Lease for New FCC Headquarters in D.C." Rebusinessonline.com. France Media. Archived from the original on January 23, 2021. Retrieved November 10, 2020.
- ^ Balderston, Michael (October 16, 2020). "FCC Officially Moves into New Headquarters". Radio World. Future Publishing Limited. Archived from the original on October 30, 2020. Retrieved November 10, 2020.
- ^ FCC Ends Long Fight, Will Move to Southwest D.C. Archived November 6, 2012, at the Wayback Machine The Washington Post. January 24, 1996. Financial F01. Retrieved March 5, 2010.
- ^ "Communications Act of 1934 | Definition, History, & Federal Communications Commission". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on June 21, 2021. Retrieved September 23, 2021.
- ^ Caterina, Brian. "Communications Act of 1934". www.mtsu.edu. Archived from the original on September 24, 2021. Retrieved September 23, 2021.
- ^ a b Reno, R.C. (July 1934). "Federal Commission Ready For Work". Telephone Engineer. 38 (7): 19.
- ^ "Order Containing Regulations" Archived April 7, 2022, at the Wayback Machine Report on Chain Broadcasting: May 1941, pages 91-92.
- ^ "WDTV, DuMont Network and The 1948 FCC "Freeze" by Richard Wirth - ProVideo Coalition". November 26, 2018. Archived from the original on April 7, 2022. Retrieved March 19, 2022.
- ^ Boddy, William. Fifties Television: the Industry and Its Critics. University of Illinois Press, 1992. ISBN 978-0-252-06299-5
- ^ Reports and Documents. Vol. 21. United States Congress. 1962. p. 2. Retrieved May 10, 2025 – via Google Books.
- ^ Clarke Ingram, "The DuMont Television Network: Historical Web Site" Archived August 4, 2009, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved February 1, 2009.
- ^ Gomery, Douglas. "Television Sweeps the Nation: The Story Behind the Pioneering Post-"Freeze" Stations" (From the W. D. "Dub" Rogers, Jr. Television Collection)". South Plains College. Archived from the original on January 16, 2009. Retrieved June 21, 2008.
- ^ "Robert W. Crandall". The Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on November 2, 2007.
- ^ "Local Community Radio Act of 2009". Govtrack.us. October 29, 2009. Archived from the original on December 25, 2010. Retrieved October 29, 2009.
- ^ FCC Oversight Hearing (September 17, 2009). "FCC: Unanimous, bipartisan support for LPFM". YouTube. Archived from the original on December 11, 2021.
- ^ Rachel M. Stilwell, "Which Public - Whose Interest - How the FCC's Deregulation of Radio Station Ownership Has Harmed the Public Interest, and How We Can Escape from the Swamp", 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 369, March 1, 2006.
- ^ Oxenford, David (February 9, 2011). "Broadcast Law Blog: On the 15th Anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, The Effect on Broadcasters is Still Debated". Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 23, 2015.
- ^ See Rachel M. Stilwell, 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 369, supra.
- ^ "FCC's CIO started young". FCW.com. Archived from the original on February 25, 2014. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
- ^ "FCC Names New CIO and Acting Director". FedScoop Magazine. January 9, 2015. Archived from the original on July 7, 2014. Retrieved May 18, 2014.
- ^ "Harvard University's Leadership for a Networked World Program" (PDF). Harvard University's Leadership for a Networked World Program. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 22, 2015. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
- ^ "Case in Point: Building an Agile Workforce and Enterprise at the FCC". Case in Point: Building an Agile Workforce and Enterprise at the FCC. Harvard University's Leadership for a Networked World Program. Archived from the original on December 22, 2015. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
- ^ "Christine Calvosa out as FCC CIO". FedScoop. May 13, 2019. Archived from the original on September 21, 2021. Retrieved September 21, 2021.
- ^ Blackburn, Piper Hudspeth (January 10, 2023). "FCC Votes To Establish New Space Bureau". Law360. Archived from the original on March 5, 2023. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
- ^ Heilweil, Rebecca (January 10, 2023). "The year space internet takes off". Vox. Archived from the original on January 11, 2023. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
- ^ Eggerton, John (April 7, 2023). "FCC To Christen Space Bureau with Public Event". NextTV. Retrieved April 11, 2023.
- ^ Johnson, Ted (September 30, 2025). "FCC Launches Review Of Rules On Network Mergers, Local Station Ownership". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved September 30, 2025.
- ^ a b "FCC Commissioners 1934-present". FCC. June 5, 2013. Archived from the original on September 6, 2019. Retrieved May 6, 2016.
- ^ Commissioner from March 9, 1935
- ^ Acting Chairman Nov 3, 1947 – Dec 28, 1947, Chairman Feb 28, 1952 – Apr 17, 1953
- ^ Skretvedt, Randy (October 5, 2018). "Radio: The Need for Regulation". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on October 24, 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2018.
- ^ "Cable Television". FCC Media Bureau, Engineering Division. December 15, 2015. Archived from the original on December 1, 2016. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ See, e.g., Red Lion Broadcasting Co. vs. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)
- ^ "Program Content Regulations". Federal Communications Commission. December 9, 2015. Archived from the original on December 1, 2016. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ Bensky, Larry (June 4, 1997), Living Room : Interview With Comedian George Carlin, Pacifica Radio Archives, archived from the original on February 4, 2015, retrieved February 18, 2014
- ^ Bensky, Larry (June 4, 1997), PZ0624b Radical Comedians Box Set DISC TWO, Pacifica Radio Archives, retrieved February 18, 2014
- ^ Nekesa Mumbi Moody (February 3, 2004). "Janet Jackson Apologizes for Bared Breast". Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 3, 2004.
- ^ Ahrens, Frank (June 8, 2006). "The Price for On-Air Indecency Goes Up". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 22, 2017. Retrieved June 27, 2009.
- ^ "Bill Number S. 193". Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) from Congressional THOMAS DB. Archived from the original on September 16, 2005. Retrieved April 11, 2005.
- ^ Ferris, David (October 20, 2006). "publish.nyc.indymedia.org | FCC Town Hall Meeting Marked by Concerns over Media Consolidation". Nyc.indymedia.org. Archived from the original on December 31, 2010. Retrieved March 4, 2012.
- ^ See El Diario La Prensas editorial Archived March 12, 2007, at the Wayback Machine on media diversity.
- ^ SSRC Archived August 18, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ a b "47 USC 332(c)". Archived from the original on April 23, 2020. Retrieved April 30, 2020.
- ^ "The End of AT&T". Celnet. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
- ^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 327. ISBN 0-465-04195-7.
- ^ "Bell Telephone System". Archived from the original on January 26, 2022. Retrieved March 23, 2016.
- ^ "AT&T BREAKUP II : Highlights in the History of a Telecommunications Giant". Los Angeles Times. September 21, 1995. Archived from the original on October 3, 2018. Retrieved February 20, 2020.
- ^ FCC Launches Inquiry For Annual Broadband Progress Report Archived September 6, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, FCC, August 6, 2015, Mark Wigfield
- ^ Jordan, Scott; Ghosh, Arijit (2009). [: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1999845 "How to determine whether a traffic management practice is reasonable"]. SSRN. Retrieved June 2, 2024.
{{cite journal}}: Check|url=value (help) - ^ The FCC Doesn't Need to Be Archived April 7, 2010, at the Wayback Machine by Peter Suderman, Reason
- ^ Hansell, Saul (August 2, 2008). "F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 4, 2017. Retrieved February 21, 2017.
- ^ "Preserving the Open Internet". fcc.gov. Archived from the original on April 27, 2014.
- ^ "United States Court of Appeals. Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, January 14, 2014" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 18, 2017. Retrieved December 10, 2017.
- ^ The Obama White House (November 10, 2014), President Obama's Statement on Keeping the Internet Open and Free, archived from the original on December 11, 2021, retrieved December 11, 2018
- ^ Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 27, 2019. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
- ^ NYT Editorial Board (November 14, 2014). "Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 1, 2019. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
- ^ Sepulveda, Ambassador Daniel A. (January 21, 2015). "The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let's Get It Right". Wired. Archived from the original on January 22, 2015. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
- ^ Staff (February 26, 2015). "FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 12, 2018. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
- ^ Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Lohr, Steve (February 26, 2015). "In Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classifies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 26, 2015. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
- ^ Flaherty, Anne (February 25, 2015). "FACT CHECK: Talking heads skew 'net neutrality' debate". AP News. Archived from the original on December 27, 2017. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
- ^ Takala, Rudy (May 9, 2016). "Is online free speech under attack?". Washington Examiner. Archived from the original on February 4, 2017. Retrieved February 8, 2017.
- ^ Liebelson, Dana (February 26, 2015). "Net Neutrality Prevails In Historic FCC Vote". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on March 21, 2019. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
- ^ Ehrenfreund, Max. "New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality". Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 5, 2015. Retrieved August 26, 2017.
- ^ Ruiz, Rebecca R. (March 12, 2015). "F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 14, 2018. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
- ^ Sommer, Jeff (March 12, 2015). "What the Net Neutrality Rules Say". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 22, 2018. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
- ^ FCC Staff (March 12, 2015). "Federal Communications Commission - FCC 15-24 - In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet - GN Docket No. 14-28 - Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 12, 2015. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
- ^ Reisinger, Don (April 13, 2015). "Net neutrality rules get published -- let the lawsuits begin". CNET. Archived from the original on March 21, 2019. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
- ^ Federal Communications Commission (April 13, 2015). "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet - A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 04/13/2015". Federal Register. Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
- ^ Federal Communications Commission (April 27, 2017). "Fact Sheet: Restoring Internet Freedom" (PDF). FCC. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 17, 2017. Retrieved May 17, 2017.
- ^ Kang, Cecilia (December 14, 2017). "F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on December 14, 2017. Retrieved December 14, 2017.
- ^ Walker, Dale; Hopping, Clare (June 12, 2018). "Net neutrality laws are now officially dead". IT Pro. Archived from the original on June 18, 2018. Retrieved June 18, 2018.
- ^ Koning, Kendall J.; Yankelevich, Aleksandr (October 1, 2018). "From internet "Openness" to "Freedom": How far has the net neutrality pendulum swung?". Utilities Policy. 54: 37–45. Bibcode:2018UtPol..54...37K. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2018.07.004. S2CID 158428437. Archived from the original on September 1, 2022. Retrieved September 8, 2022.
- ^ Shields, Todd (April 25, 2024). "US Revives Net Neutrality to Establish Authority Over Internet". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved January 2, 2025.
- ^ Heisig, Eric (January 2, 2025). "FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by Sixth Circuit (3)". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved January 2, 2025.
- ^ "Ohio Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, No. 24-3449 (6th Cir. 2025)". Justia Law. Retrieved January 3, 2025.
- ^ FCC Refuses to Investigate NSA Program, Predicting Likely Administration Road Blocks Edward J. Markey. May 23, 2006.
- ^ Olga Kharif (October 15, 2008). "FCC's Kevin Martin Supports Freeing White Spaces". Business Week. Archived from the original on October 19, 2008. Retrieved October 15, 2008.
- ^ Gonzalez, David (October 15, 2008). "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to allow the use of portable devices on white spaces". UnWiredView.com. Archived from the original on October 17, 2008. Retrieved October 15, 2008.
- ^ Marguerite Reardon (November 4, 2008). "FCC opens free 'white space' spectrum". CNET. Archived from the original on March 15, 2012. Retrieved November 5, 2008.
- ^ FCC opens up wireless 'white spaces;' Assessing winners, losers and wild-cards Archived January 23, 2009, at the Wayback Machine November 5, 2008.
- ^ "NCVEC - History of NCVEC". www.ncvec.org. Archived from the original on January 10, 2017. Retrieved January 9, 2017.
- ^ "Morse code being eliminated from radio license test". Savannah Morning News. February 18, 2007. Retrieved July 20, 2024.
- ^ ASR Registration Search Archived May 27, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved November 4, 2009.
- ^ Tisinger, Andrew (February 23, 2023). "Standardized Exclusion: A Theory of Barrier Lock-In". Duke Law Journal. 72 (6): 1387–1430. ISSN 0012-7086.
- ^ Stimson, Leslie (November 6, 2013). "IBiquity Illuminates License Fees". Radio World. Archived from the original on November 11, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
- ^ Greer, Clarke; Ferguson, Douglas (2008). "Factors Influencing the Adoption of HD Radio by Local Radio Station Managers". The International Journal on Media Management. 10 (4): 148–157. doi:10.1080/14241270802426725. S2CID 168008856. Archived from the original on November 11, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
- ^ McCullagh D (November 7, 2008) Democratic win could herald wireless Net neutrality. "Democratic win could herald wireless Net neutrality". CNET. Archived from the original on November 11, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) CNET, viewed 2010-06-01. - ^ Brodkin, Jon (September 20, 2013). "Verizon blocks Nexus 7 and will probably get away with it". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on November 11, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
- ^ Obar, Jonathan, A.; Schejter, A.M. (2010). "Inclusion or illusion? An analysis of the FCC's". Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 54 (2): 212–227. doi:10.1080/08838151003735000. S2CID 143835343.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Legal Websites and Information". Federal Communications Commission. April 11, 2011. Archived from the original on April 27, 2014. Retrieved March 3, 2014.
- ^ "Federal Communications Commission Record". University of North Texas Libraries. Archived from the original on December 25, 2013. Retrieved March 3, 2014.
- ^ a b c Moss, D.A.; Lackow, J.B. (July 13, 2008), Rethinking the role of history in law & economics: the case of the Federal Radio Commission in 1927 (working paper), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1220743, S2CID 153989052, SSRN 1220743
- ^ Mazzocco, D (2005). "Radio's New Deal: The NRA and U.S. Broadcasting, 1933–1935". Journal of Radio Studies. 12 (1): 32–46. doi:10.1207/s15506843jrs1201_4. S2CID 154636781.
- ^ Risley, F. (1995). "A First Step: The FCC's Investigation Into Newspaper Ownership of Radio Stations". Journal of Radio Studies. 3: 118–129. doi:10.1080/19376529509361978.
- ^ Slotten, H. (2000). "Radio and Television Regulation". The British Journal for the History of Science. 35 (2). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 213–250. doi:10.1017/S0007087402404700. S2CID 144156784.
- ^ Barrow, R (1957). "Network Broadcasting – The Report of the FCC Network Study Staff". Law and Contemporary Problems. 22 (4): 611–625. doi:10.2307/1190368. JSTOR 1190368. Archived from the original on August 11, 2020. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
- ^ Minow, N (2003). "Television and the Public Interest". Federal Communications Law Journal. 55: 395–406. Archived from the original on July 31, 2020. Retrieved April 30, 2020.
- ^ "Ask HN: I'm an FCC Commissioner proposing regulation of IoT security updates | Hacker News".
Further reading
[edit]- Zarkin, Kimberly A.; Zarkin, Michael J. (2006). The Federal Communications Commission: Front Line in the Culture and Regulation Wars. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0313334160.
- The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape (August 1, 2018) by the Congressional Research Service
External links
[edit]- Official website

- FCC Rules (CFR Title 47) in the Code of Federal Regulations
- FCC in the Federal Register
- FCC on USAspending.gov
- The FCC Record from the UNT Digital Library
Federal Communications Commission
View on GrokipediaOrganizational Structure
Commissioners and Leadership
The Federal Communications Commission is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate, serving staggered five-year terms that expire on June 30 of the relevant year.[8] The President also designates one commissioner as Chairman to lead the agency and set its agenda, subject to Senate confirmation for the underlying commissioner role.[9] Federal law limits the Commission to no more than three members from the same political party to promote bipartisan oversight.[1] Commissioners exercise independent judgment but vote collectively on most decisions, with the Chairman holding authority to act unilaterally in certain circumstances, such as during pro forma sessions or emergencies.[5] As of October 2025, the Commission operates with three active commissioners following transitions after the January 20, 2025, presidential inauguration.[10] Brendan Carr serves as Chairman, having been elevated from his prior role as the senior Republican commissioner; he previously acted as the FCC's General Counsel and focused on deregulation efforts.[11] Anna M. Gomez, sworn in as a commissioner on September 7, 2023, represents Democratic perspectives and emphasizes consumer protection in communications policy.[12] Olivia Trusty, a Republican, joined as commissioner and has engaged in international telecom discussions, including remarks at the Mobile World Congress in October 2025.[13] The two remaining seats remain vacant pending presidential nominations and Senate confirmations, consistent with historical patterns of quorum challenges during partisan shifts.[9]| Commissioner | Position | Political Party | Appointment Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brendan Carr | Chairman | Republican | Designated Chairman post-January 2025 inauguration; prior term as commissioner began 2017.[11] [14] |
| Anna M. Gomez | Commissioner | Democrat | Sworn in September 7, 2023.[12] |
| Olivia Trusty | Commissioner | Republican | Serving as of October 2025; active in recent agency events.[10] [13] |
Bureaus and Divisions
The Federal Communications Commission operates through seven principal bureaus, each tasked with developing, recommending, and implementing policies and programs in designated communications sectors, as delineated under the Communications Act of 1934 and subsequent reorganizations.[15] These bureaus handle licensing, rule enforcement, spectrum allocation, and consumer protection, with internal divisions specializing in operational aspects such as auctions, engineering reviews, and compliance investigations.[16] The structure emphasizes functional specialization to address the technical and regulatory demands of evolving technologies, including the 2023 establishment of the Space Bureau amid surging satellite deployments exceeding 10,000 active units by mid-2025.[17] The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) formulates and executes policies to protect consumers, particularly those with disabilities, tribal communities, and underserved populations, while managing the FCC's consumer complaint hotline—handling over 200,000 inquiries annually—and coordinating with state, local, and tribal governments on outreach initiatives.[18] Its divisions include the Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division for dispute resolution and the Consumer Policy Division for accessibility standards, such as closed captioning mandates under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. The Enforcement Bureau investigates violations of the Communications Act, imposes fines totaling $200 million in fiscal year 2024 for infractions like unauthorized spectrum use and deceptive advertising, and resolves industry disputes to safeguard competition and public safety.[19] Key divisions encompass the Investigations and Hearings Division for formal proceedings and the Telecommunications Consumers Division for spam and robocall enforcement, which processed 1.3 billion unwanted calls reported in 2024 under the STIR/SHAKEN framework.[20] The Media Bureau regulates broadcast television and radio stations—licensing over 15,000 entities—and cable/satellite providers, administering rules on content diversity, ownership limits, and public interest obligations, including the children's programming requirements of the Children's Television Act of 1990.[21] Divisions such as the Audio Division and Video Division review applications and enforce indecency standards, with the bureau adjudicating over 500 ownership transfer requests yearly.[22] The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau advances emergency communications infrastructure, including the 911 service ecosystem serving 240 million annual calls and Next Generation 911 deployment funded by $3 billion in grants as of 2025.[23] Its divisions, like the Operations and Emergency Management Division, coordinate disaster response protocols, such as spectrum prioritization during hurricanes, ensuring interoperability for first responders under the WARN Act of 2006.[24] The Space Bureau, created on April 11, 2023, to consolidate satellite oversight amid a proliferation of low-Earth orbit constellations, handles policy and licensing for space-to-Earth communications, processing applications for over 100,000 future satellites projected by 2030.[17] Comprising the Satellite Programs and Policy Division, Satellite Licensing Division, and Earth Stations Division, it addresses orbital debris mitigation and interference rules under international agreements like those from the International Telecommunication Union.[25] The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau oversees mobile broadband and spectrum auctions, which generated $85 billion in proceeds from the 2021 C-band sale, licensing services for 400 million wireless devices and public safety networks like FirstNet with 99.9% nationwide coverage by 2025.[26] Divisions include the Mobility Division for 5G deployments and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Licensing Division for critical infrastructure radio systems. The Wireline Competition Bureau promotes competition in fixed-line services, administering the $8.5 billion Universal Service Fund to expand broadband to 7 million unserved locations as of 2025, while reviewing mergers and enforcing interconnection obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[27] Its Competition Policy Division fosters market entry through rulemaking on unbundling and pricing, and the Telecommunications Access Policy Division oversees high-cost support mechanisms distributing $5 billion annually.[28]Offices and Support Functions
The Federal Communications Commission's staff offices deliver administrative, legal, technical, economic, and oversight support to the commissioners, bureaus, and overall operations, distinct from the substantive regulatory work of the bureaus. These offices, numbering around 10 to 12 depending on organizational updates, facilitate policy implementation, internal management, public engagement, and compliance with federal laws, enabling the agency to process over 1 million licensing actions annually and manage a budget exceeding $500 million as of fiscal year 2023.[15][29] The Office of the Managing Director functions as the agency's chief executive for operations, directing budget formulation and execution—totaling approximately $388 million in FY 2024—along with human resources for over 1,400 employees, procurement contracts valued in the hundreds of millions, information technology systems, security protocols, and facilities maintenance across headquarters and field sites. Established under 47 CFR § 0.11, it ensures fiscal accountability and operational efficiency without direct involvement in spectrum allocation or enforcement.[30][31] The Office of General Counsel provides comprehensive legal counsel to the Commission, litigating cases in federal courts—such as those involving spectrum auctions or net neutrality rules—drafting advisory opinions, reviewing proposed regulations for statutory compliance, and enforcing ex parte contact rules under 47 CFR Part 1. It handled over 200 judicial proceedings in recent years and advises on interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934, emphasizing due process in adjudications.[32] The Office of Engineering and Technology conducts engineering evaluations for equipment authorizations, processing around 1,200 certification applications monthly, and develops technical standards for radio frequency devices to prevent interference, while supporting spectrum policy through laboratory testing and rule-making recommendations. It maintains the Equipment Authorization database with over 100,000 entries and collaborates on international standards alignment.[33] The Office of the Secretary manages official records, dockets for rulemakings—tracking more than 500 active proceedings—and coordinates Commission meetings, Sunshine Act compliance, and public filings, serving as the custodian for documents under 47 CFR § 0.11. It processed over 10,000 public comments in major proceedings like the 2023 spectrum auctions.[31] Other support offices include the Office of Media Relations, which disseminates Commission decisions to journalists and handles over 5,000 media inquiries yearly; the Office of Legislative Affairs, liaising with Congress on bills affecting communications policy, such as the 2023 reauthorization efforts; and the Office of Inspector General, conducting audits and investigations into waste or abuse, issuing reports like the 2024 review of IT cybersecurity vulnerabilities. The Office of Economics and Analytics supplies data-driven analyses for auctions generating $80 billion in revenues since 1994, while specialized units like the Office of Communications Business Opportunities promote minority and disadvantaged business participation in auctions.[16][34]Decision-Making Processes
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exercises its authority through decisions made by its five commissioners, who are appointed by the President with Senate confirmation to staggered five-year terms, ensuring no more than three from the same political party; the President designates the chair from among them.[5] Ultimate decision-making resides with the full Commission, which approves or modifies recommendations from its bureaus and offices, maintaining oversight to align with statutory mandates under the Communications Act of 1934.[35] A quorum of at least three commissioners is required for official actions, and as of June 2025, the agency temporarily lacked this threshold due to vacancies, halting routine business until appointments restored it.[36] Decisions typically arise via rulemaking, adjudication, or licensing proceedings, with rulemaking—governed by the Administrative Procedure Act—forming the core for establishing or amending regulations.[37] This process begins with initiation by statute, petition, or internal agenda, often through a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to gather information or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) outlining specific proposals; public notice is published in the Federal Register, inviting comments from stakeholders, which the Commission reviews before issuing a Report and Order (R&O) adopting final rules.[38][39] Comment periods generally last 30 to 60 days, with opportunities for reply comments, enabling empirical input but occasionally criticized for insufficient transparency in how comments influence outcomes.[40] Rules take effect 30 days after Federal Register publication unless otherwise specified, subject to judicial review.[41] Adjudication handles enforcement, licensing disputes, and carrier complaints, shifting since 2018 toward informal procedures emphasizing written submissions over trial-like hearings to expedite resolutions.[42] The Enforcement Bureau mediates complex market disputes filed against carriers, while licensing decisions—such as spectrum auctions or broadcast renewals—are proposed by bureaus like the Media Bureau and finalized by Commission vote.[43] Formal adjudication, when required by statute, follows Administrative Procedure Act standards with evidentiary hearings before administrative law judges, but informal variants predominate for efficiency.[44] Commission votes occur via open meetings under the Government in the Sunshine Act or "circulation" for non-controversial items, where the chair circulates draft orders electronically; items garnering three supportive votes enter "must vote" status, requiring remaining commissioners to vote within deadlines—initially 12 calendar days, extendable—to prevent indefinite delays.[45][46][47] Every vote and official act must be recorded publicly upon request, promoting accountability, though critics note that post-vote editorial changes by staff can alter final texts before release.[8][48] This structure balances deliberation with expedition but has faced scrutiny for potential partisan influences, as commissioners' political alignments shape outcomes on issues like net neutrality or spectrum allocation.[49]Historical Development
Establishment via the Communications Act of 1934
The Communications Act of 1934 created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as an independent regulatory agency to oversee interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communications.[50] Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934, the Act aimed to ensure "a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges," while promoting competition and preventing monopolistic practices in these sectors.[51] This legislation consolidated fragmented regulatory authority previously divided between the Interstate Commerce Commission, which handled wireline services like telegraph and telephone, and the Federal Radio Commission, tasked with spectrum allocation since the Radio Act of 1927.[2] The FCC assumed the Federal Radio Commission's responsibilities for licensing radio stations and managing airwave interference, expanding oversight to include emerging technologies and broader communications policy.[3] Unlike its predecessor, which had only five commissioners and limited enforcement powers amid rapid radio proliferation, the new agency addressed spectrum scarcity by centralizing authority under a unified framework that balanced private innovation with public interest obligations.[5] The Act explicitly tasked the FCC with promoting "the larger and more effective use of radio" and wire services for educational, scientific, and news dissemination, reflecting congressional intent to harness communications for national development without favoring any single technology or carrier.[50] Structurally, the FCC was designed as a bipartisan body with seven commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, serving staggered six-year terms, with no more than four from the same political party to mitigate partisan influence.[8] The agency's first commissioners took office in July 1934, inheriting approximately 700 pending radio license applications and initiating a more systematic approach to frequency assignments and technical standards.[3] This establishment marked a shift toward comprehensive federal intervention in communications, driven by the need to resolve disputes over broadcasting dominance and wire monopolies, such as those posed by AT&T, while embedding principles of universal service and fair competition into regulatory practice.[5]Early Radio and Chain Broadcasting Regulations (1930s-1940s)
Upon its creation by the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC assumed the Federal Radio Commission's responsibilities for regulating radio broadcasting, including issuing licenses, assigning frequencies, and resolving interference disputes to manage the increasingly crowded AM spectrum.[52] By the mid-1930s, the number of commercial radio stations had grown to around 600, prompting the FCC to refine allocation rules, such as designating "clear channels" for high-power stations to provide national coverage while reserving regional and local frequencies for lower-power operations.[53] These measures aimed to balance technical efficiency with equitable access, enforcing engineering standards for transmitter power and antenna design to minimize signal overlap.[54] The rise of chain broadcasting in the 1930s amplified these challenges, as national networks consolidated control over affiliates. NBC, established in 1926, and CBS, formed in 1927, expanded through affiliations, with NBC operating both Red and Blue networks; by the late 1930s, these networks affiliated with over 90% of stations in major markets, dominating prime-time programming and revenue through sponsored shows.[55] This structure enabled networks to dictate content and scheduling via contractual clauses, raising concerns about reduced local autonomy and competition, as independent stations struggled to secure advertising or talent.[56] On March 18, 1938, the FCC launched a formal investigation under Order No. 37 to examine whether chain broadcasting practices warranted special regulations, focusing on potential monopolistic restraints authorized by the 1934 Act's provisions for oversight of affiliated systems.[56] Extensive hearings revealed networks' use of exclusive affiliation agreements, which barred stations from multiple network ties; "option time" clauses reserving blocks of airtime; and direct ownership of multiple stations, allowing undue influence over affiliates' operations and limiting market entry for rivals.[55] The FCC's May 1941 Report on Chain Broadcasting concluded that these practices stifled competition and diversity, recommending prohibitions to promote independent programming and affiliate freedom.[55] In response, the FCC promulgated regulations effective October 1941 (with clarifications), including: bans on exclusive affiliation contracts, permitting stations to join multiple networks; limits on affiliation terms to no more than two years; elimination of option time, restoring stations' control over scheduling; and restrictions on networks owning more than one station per market to curb vertical integration.[55] [57] Networks challenged the rules in court, but the Supreme Court upheld them in National Broadcasting Co. v. United States (1943), affirming the FCC's authority under the public interest standard to regulate economic practices affecting broadcast diversity without direct content censorship.[58] These measures persisted into the 1940s, influencing radio's wartime operations—such as priority allocations for government programming—while laying groundwork for similar scrutiny of emerging television networks, though enforcement emphasized radio's dominance in the era.[57] By fostering affiliate independence, the regulations contributed to the eventual divestiture of NBC's Blue Network in 1943, which became ABC, enhancing competitive pluralism in broadcasting.[55]Post-War Broadcast Expansion and the 1948 Freeze
Following World War II, the Federal Communications Commission facilitated a rapid expansion of broadcast services amid surging public demand for radio and emerging television technologies. Radio broadcasting, already widespread with over 900 AM stations by 1945, saw further growth through postwar reallocations, including the shift of FM frequencies from 42-44 MHz to 88-108 MHz to accommodate expanded operations and reduce interference with television channels.[59] Television, limited to nine operational stations at war's end with fewer than 7,000 receivers nationwide, experienced explosive development as the FCC prioritized VHF channel assignments (channels 2-13) for commercial use, licensing approximately 50 stations by mid-1948 primarily in large cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.[60] This growth was driven by pent-up manufacturing capacity and broadcaster investments, with networks such as NBC and CBS accelerating programming to capitalize on receiver sales exceeding 170,000 units by 1948.[61] However, the FCC's expedited licensing process—processing over 3,000 applications in the immediate postwar years—led to spectrum congestion and technical conflicts, as initial allocations failed to account for nationwide propagation patterns, resulting in co-channel interference where signals from distant stations overlapped and adjacent-channel bleed disrupted reception.[62] Engineering limitations, including inadequate skip-distance predictions and the absence of UHF integration, exacerbated these issues, prompting complaints from broadcasters and viewers about unreliable service in overlapping markets.[63] The influx of applications overwhelmed the Commission's resources, necessitating a pause to formulate equitable rules for channel spacing, minimum mileage separations, and potential color broadcasting standards.[64] On September 30, 1948, the FCC issued a public notice imposing a complete freeze on new television station construction permits, license grants, and significant modifications to existing facilities, affecting both VHF and proposed UHF operations.[65] Intended as a six-month measure to conduct technical studies, the moratorium extended to nearly four years due to debates over spectrum division, UHF viability, and equitable distribution across urban and rural areas, during which pending applications ballooned to over 400 by 1951 while only 107 stations operated nationwide.[66] The freeze halted expansion, preserving existing VHF dominance but delaying service to half the population and stalling industry growth until the Commission's Sixth Report and Order on April 14, 1952, lifted the ban by allocating 2,053 additional channels, including UHF bands (14-83), to enable broader coverage.[67] This restructuring prioritized interference mitigation through standardized engineering criteria, fundamentally shaping postwar broadcast geography.[6]Deregulation Efforts and the Telecommunications Act of 1996
In the 1980s, the Federal Communications Commission pursued deregulation to foster market competition in broadcasting, beginning with the relaxation of programming requirements. In 1981, the FCC eliminated detailed guidelines on non-entertainment programming, allowing broadcasters greater flexibility in content decisions based on audience demand rather than prescriptive rules. This shift aligned with Reagan-era policies emphasizing reduced government intervention, as evidenced by the Commission's 1984 decision to abolish the "seven-station rule," which had capped ownership at seven AM radio, seven FM radio, and seven television stations nationwide.[68] Concurrently, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 deregulated rates for approximately 95% of cable systems, preempting local rate controls and promoting expansion in a nascent competitive market. These actions aimed to counteract perceived overregulation stifling innovation, though critics argued they accelerated ownership concentration without commensurate benefits to diversity.[69] By the early 1990s, technological convergence—such as the rise of cable, wireless, and early internet services—intensified calls for broader reform, as the 1934 Communications Act's silos separating local telephone, long-distance, broadcast, and cable proved outdated. The FCC's ongoing reviews of ownership rules, including further relaxations in radio station limits from 40 to 40 stations (with audience reach caps), set the stage for legislative overhaul, though congressional resistance slowed momentum amid concerns over media consolidation.[4] Station owners lobbied aggressively, citing competitive pressures from emerging media, leading to incremental FCC approvals for cross-ownership in certain markets.[69] The Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed into law by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996, represented the first comprehensive revision of telecommunications law since 1934, explicitly aiming to promote competition and reduce regulation across interconnected industries.[70][71] Title II facilitated entry by incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) into long-distance markets upon meeting local competition duties, such as unbundling network elements for rivals at cost-based rates and reselling services at wholesale discounts.[72] For broadcasting, Section 202 repealed the statutory ban on cable-television cross-ownership and raised national audience reach limits for television from 25% to 35%, while quadrupling radio ownership caps to 8 stations in large markets and eliminating most local radio limits.[71] These provisions dismantled structural separations, enabling mergers like the formation of conglomerates controlling thousands of stations, though empirical outcomes showed increased market concentration rather than the anticipated proliferation of independent voices.[73] The Act also mandated FCC quadrennial reviews of ownership rules to ensure they served the public interest, retaining some limits like duopoly prohibitions in smaller markets.[74] While intended to lower prices through rivalry—evidenced by subsequent declines in long-distance rates—it preserved universal service obligations via contributions from all interstate carriers, blending deregulation with subsidies.[75][76]Digital Transitions and 21st-Century Reforms (2000s-2020s)
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spearheaded the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting, mandated by the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, which required full-power television stations to cease analog transmissions and operate solely in digital format by February 17, 2009, to free up spectrum for public safety and advanced services.[77][78] Due to public preparedness concerns, Congress delayed the deadline to June 12, 2009, after which approximately 1,000 full-power stations completed the switch, enabling high-definition programming and multicasting while recovering 108 MHz of UHF spectrum previously allocated for analog use.[79][80] The FCC coordinated consumer education, coupon programs for digital converter boxes via the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and enforcement to minimize disruptions, though an estimated 1.75 million households remained unready on transition day, prompting temporary analog nightlight services for low-power stations.[81] In parallel, the FCC addressed broadband expansion through the National Broadband Plan released on March 17, 2010, which outlined over 100 recommendations to achieve universal access to 100 Mbps download speeds for 90% of Americans by 2020, emphasizing spectrum reallocation, infrastructure incentives, and reforms to the Universal Service Fund to shift subsidies from voice to high-speed internet deployment in underserved areas.[82] This plan influenced subsequent policies, including the Connect America Fund phases starting in 2012, which allocated billions to rural broadband via competitive bidding and reversed auctions, though deployment shortfalls led to clawbacks and adjustments by the mid-2010s.[83] The FCC also advanced the IP transition from time-division multiplexing (TDM) copper networks to internet protocol-based systems, launching voluntary trials in 2013 and forbearance proceedings to reduce legacy regulations, enabling carriers to retire outdated infrastructure while preserving voice services through multi-line telephone service trials and competitive local exchange carrier protections.[83][84] Net neutrality policies evolved amid debates over internet service provider (ISP) authority, with the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order imposing transparency, no-blocking, and no-unreasonable-discrimination rules on broadband under ancillary authority following court setbacks like Comcast Corp. v. FCC (2010), which limited enforcement against traffic management. In 2015, under Title II reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service, the FCC adopted stricter utility-style regulations prohibiting paid prioritization and enhancing agency oversight, generating over 4 million public comments but facing industry challenges over investment impacts.[85] The 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order under the Trump administration repealed these Title II rules, reverting broadband to lightly regulated Title I status and relying on case-by-case enforcement plus transparency, a move upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Mozilla Corp. v. FCC (2019) despite arguments that deregulation stifled competition.[85] Subsequent Biden-era efforts reinstated Title II rules in 2024 via the Open Internet Order, but a January 2025 court ruling vacated them, restoring the 2017 framework amid ongoing litigation over FCC jurisdiction post-NetNeutrality II Supreme Court precedents.[86][87] Spectrum reforms focused on reallocating airwaves for wireless broadband, with the FCC conducting over 100 auctions since 1994, including AWS-3 in 2014 raising $41.3 billion and the 600 MHz incentive auction launched in 2016—the first to allow voluntary broadcaster participation in relinquishing UHF spectrum for 5G use.[88] The incentive auction concluded in April 2017 after 47 bidding rounds, clearing 70 MHz (plus a 14 MHz guard band) for mobile services, generating $19.8 billion in proceeds while repacking 1,007 stations into reduced channel space to minimize interference, though implementation delays extended to 2020 due to technical complexities and stakeholder disputes.[89][90] These efforts supported 5G deployment goals, with subsequent C-band auctions in 2021 yielding $81 billion, but critics noted that repacking inefficiencies left less spectrum than targeted and imposed costs on broadcasters without fully addressing rural coverage gaps.[91] Additional 21st-century reforms included the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, directing the FCC to ensure advanced communications services like VoIP and digital devices were accessible to persons with disabilities through features such as real-time text and video relay upgrades.[92] The agency also pursued deregulation in areas like forbearance from outdated tariffs to facilitate fiber and 5G investments, while enforcing against spectrum squatting and unauthorized operations to maintain efficient allocation.[93] By the 2020s, amid pandemic-driven demands, the FCC expanded emergency broadband subsidies via the $3.2 billion Emergency Broadband Benefit in 2021, later evolving into the Affordable Connectivity Program, though funding lapsed in 2024 without congressional renewal, highlighting tensions between market-driven deployment and universal service mandates.[94]Recent Reorganizations and Space Bureau (2023-2025)
In January 2023, the Federal Communications Commission unanimously approved a reorganization of its International Bureau, dividing it into a dedicated Space Bureau and a standalone Office of International Affairs to address the surging volume of satellite licensing applications and policy matters amid rapid growth in the commercial space sector.[95] This structural shift eliminated the International Bureau, reallocating its satellite communications functions—such as licensing earth stations, space stations, and related spectrum policies—to the Space Bureau, while international telecommunications policy, treaty implementation, and non-satellite cross-border issues moved to the Office of International Affairs.[96] The changes took effect on April 10, 2023, with an official launch event held on April 11 at FCC headquarters in Washington, D.C.[17] [96] Concurrent with the International Bureau's dissolution, the FCC restructured elements of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) and Office of the Managing Director (OMD) to enhance operational efficiency. The CGB's Reference Information Center, responsible for public records access, was transferred to the OMD's Office of the Secretary. Within the OMD, records management functions from the Performance Evaluation and Records Management unit were integrated into its IT group, the unit was renamed Performance and Program Management, and a new Enterprise Acquisition Center was created as a standalone entity for procurement oversight.[96] These adjustments aimed to streamline administrative processes and free resources for core regulatory priorities.[97] The reorganization was driven by the need to modernize FCC operations in response to exponential increases in space-based communications demands, including low-Earth orbit constellations and broadband satellite deployments, which had overwhelmed the prior structure's capacity. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel emphasized that the Space Bureau would bolster U.S. leadership in the burgeoning space economy by accelerating licensing reviews and fostering innovation, while the Office of International Affairs would sharpen focus on global coordination without diluting domestic space efforts.[97] By late 2023, the Space Bureau launched a Transparency Initiative to provide clearer public data on satellite applications and approvals, further supporting its mandate.[98] From 2024 through mid-2025, no major structural reorganizations occurred, though the agency pursued deregulatory initiatives under new Chairman Brendan Carr following the January 2025 transition to the second Trump administration. These included a March 2025 public notice soliciting input on eliminating outdated rules and the creation of an internal Council on National Security on March 13, 2025, to mitigate supply chain risks from foreign adversaries in communications equipment. The Space Bureau continued to prioritize satellite policy advancements, such as supplemental coverage from space rules adopted in 2024, amid ongoing docket proceedings into October 2025.[99] [100] [101]Legal Authority and Enforcement
Statutory Powers and Jurisdiction
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was established by the Communications Act of 1934 to centralize federal regulation of communications, replacing earlier fragmented oversight by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Radio Commission.[52] Codified primarily in Title 47 of the United States Code, the Act grants the FCC authority over interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio, with the explicit purpose of ensuring efficient, competitive service at reasonable rates while advancing national defense and maximizing the utility of such services for the American public.[51] This foundational mandate emphasizes regulation to prevent monopolistic practices and interference, reflecting congressional intent to promote widespread access without favoring any single technology or carrier.[52] The FCC's jurisdiction is delimited to interstate and foreign communications, encompassing radio transmissions (which are inherently incapable of strict geographic confinement due to signal propagation), wireline services crossing state lines, and related facilities like satellites and cables used for such transmissions. Under Title III, this includes licensing and assigning frequencies for broadcast radio, television, and other wireless services to avoid interference and serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity—a standard requiring evidence-based assessments of service quality, diversity, and competition. Title II extends authority over common carriers, such as telephone companies, permitting regulation of rates, practices, and interconnections deemed just and reasonable, with prohibitions on unjust discrimination. Subsequent amendments, including the Telecommunications Act of 1996, expanded scope to cable systems (Title VI) and certain broadband aspects, but intrastate communications remain primarily under state purview unless they substantially affect interstate commerce, allowing FCC preemption of conflicting state laws to ensure uniform national policy.[102] Statutory powers include rulemaking to classify services, allocate spectrum, and enforce technical standards; adjudicating licenses through hearings; and imposing penalties for violations, such as fines up to $23,961 per day for persistent common carrier infractions as adjusted for inflation.[8] The agency may issue cease-and-desist orders, revoke licenses, or seize equipment in cases of willful interference or unlicensed operation, with judicial review limited to substantial evidence standards under the Administrative Procedure Act. These powers are exercised independently, though subject to congressional oversight via appropriations and amendments, and do not extend to content censorship except in narrowly defined areas like indecency or national security threats. Empirical data from FCC enforcement actions, such as over 1,000 annual spectrum violation citations, underscore the practical scope of this authority in maintaining orderly communications infrastructure.[103]Rulemaking and Adjudication Procedures
The Federal Communications Commission's rulemaking authority derives from the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and is subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 553. Rulemaking proceedings typically begin with the issuance of a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to gather information or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) outlining proposed changes, both announced via public notice in the Federal Register.[39] Interested parties submit written comments and replies within specified periods, often 30 to 60 days, which the Commission reviews before adopting a Report and Order (R&O) to finalize rules or a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) if additional input is needed.[104] These procedures apply to regulations on spectrum allocation, broadband policies, and media ownership, with rules codified in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.[105] Exemptions from full notice-and-comment may occur for interpretive rules, procedural matters, or good cause scenarios where delay poses risks, such as public safety emergencies, though the FCC must provide post-adoption justification.[39] Petitions for rulemaking from industry or public entities trigger review, with the Commission maintaining dockets for tracking proceedings via its Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).[106] Judicial review of final rules is available in the U.S. Courts of Appeals under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342, focusing on whether procedures complied with the APA and whether the action was arbitrary or capricious.[107] Adjudication procedures address licensing disputes, carrier complaints under Section 208 of the Communications Act, and enforcement actions, distinguishing between informal and formal processes to promote efficiency.[43] Informal adjudication, the preferred initial approach, involves mediation by the Enforcement Bureau's Market Disputes Resolution Division or staff-assisted negotiations, applicable to most Section 208 complaints against common carriers without requiring trial-like hearings.[108] Complainants file informal submissions detailing alleged violations, prompting carrier responses and potential settlements, resolving many disputes without escalation; for example, the process avoids formal costs for issues like interconnection failures.[109] Formal adjudication follows when informal efforts fail, governed by 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.721–1.736, resembling abbreviated federal court proceedings with a written record comprising complaints, answers, and stipulated facts, rather than full evidentiary hearings.[110] In 2020, the FCC amended its hearing rules to codify streamlined procedures, shifting from traditional formal, trial-type adjudications—requiring Administrative Law Judges and cross-examination—to informal written submissions and limited oral arguments, reducing burdens in spectrum auction disputes and license revocations.[111] Decisions by the full Commission or delegated bureaus are subject to reconsideration petitions within 30 days and appellate review in federal courts, ensuring due process under the APA's formal adjudication standards where statutorily mandated, such as certain broadcast license renewals.[43] This framework balances expeditious resolution with procedural fairness, though critics argue it occasionally favors incumbents in complex technical disputes.[112]Enforcement Actions and Penalties
The Federal Communications Commission's Enforcement Bureau investigates potential violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and agency rules, focusing on areas such as spectrum misuse, consumer protection, indecency, robocalls, and data privacy.[19] Investigations typically begin nonpublicly and may result in administrative actions, including warnings, consent decrees, or formal proceedings leading to civil penalties.[19] The bureau prioritizes cases involving public safety, national security, and competition, with penalties designed to deter willful or repeated violations through monetary forfeitures adjusted for inflation under the Debt Collection Improvement Act.[113] Enforcement proceeds via Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NALs), which propose fines based on statutory base amounts—such as $7,000 per violation for certain spectrum rules, subject to upward adjustments for factors like ability to pay, history of violations, and substantial gain from the misconduct.[114] Respondents may contest NALs before an administrative law judge, after which the full Commission issues a forfeiture order if liability is found; uncollected fines are referred to the Department of Justice for recovery.[19] From early 2017 to 2021, the bureau issued over $1.5 billion in proposed penalties, settlements, and collections, reflecting intensified focus on high-impact violations like unauthorized operations and deceptive practices.[113] Notable enforcement actions include fines against major wireless carriers for unauthorized location data sharing. In April 2024, the FCC imposed nearly $200 million in penalties on AT&T ($57 million), Verizon ($47.3 million), T-Mobile ($80 million), and Sprint ($31.7 million) for selling real-time and historical customer location information to third parties without proper consent, violating sections 222 and 338 of the Communications Act and CIPA privacy rules.[115] In robocall enforcement, the Commission issued a record $225 million forfeiture in March 2021 against Telemarketing Metrics, LLC, for transmitting over 1 billion spoofed sales calls in under five months, breaching the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[116] Earlier, in July 2017, Dialing Services, LLC faced a $2.88 million penalty for placing millions of unsolicited autodialed calls to emergency lines and restricted numbers.[117] Pirate radio operations, which interfere with licensed broadcasts and emergency communications, have drawn repeated penalties under the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement (PIRATE) Act. In September 2025, the FCC affirmed a $40,000 fine against an unlicensed New Orleans operator for 20 days of transmissions.[118] Broader campaigns propose multimillion-dollar forfeitures; for instance, in February 2025, NALs targeted multiple operators for signal interference impacting commercial and public safety signals.[119] Historical indecency enforcement under section 1464 of the Communications Act included a $1.75 million settlement with Clear Channel Communications in June 2004, resolving complaints against stations airing explicit content, including a $495,000 forfeiture for prior violations.[120]| Violation Type | Date | Entity | Penalty Amount | Key Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location Data Sharing | April 2024 | AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint | $200 million total | Unauthorized sales of customer geolocation data without consent.[115] |
| Spoofed Robocalls | March 2021 | Telemarketing Metrics, LLC | $225 million | 1 billion+ illegal calls in <5 months.[116] |
| Unauthorized Autodialed Calls | July 2017 | Dialing Services, LLC | $2.88 million | Calls to emergency and restricted lines.[117] |
| Pirate Radio | September 2025 | FC New Orleans, Inc. | $40,000 | 20 days of unlicensed broadcasting.[118] |
| Indecency Broadcasts | June 2004 | Clear Channel Communications | $1.75 million (settlement) | Multiple explicit content complaints.[120] |
Broadcasting and Media Policies
Radio and Television Licensing
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) administers licenses for radio and television broadcast stations under the authority granted by the Communications Act of 1934, which established the agency to regulate interstate and foreign communications by wire and radio, including the allocation of spectrum to prevent interference and promote efficient use.[59] This replaced the earlier Federal Radio Commission created by the Radio Act of 1927, which had overseen initial radio licensing to manage growing spectrum congestion from commercial broadcasting.[59] Full-power AM, FM radio, and television stations receive licenses for terms of eight years, classified as either commercial or noncommercial educational (NCE), with the FCC evaluating applications to ensure they serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" standard derived from the Act.[121][122] New broadcast licenses are obtained through a competitive application process managed via the FCC's Universal Licensing System (ULS), requiring detailed submissions including engineering analyses to demonstrate no harmful interference with existing stations, compliance with technical standards (e.g., power limits, antenna heights), and financial qualifications to construct and operate the facility.[123][124] Applicants for commercial stations must file FCC Form 301 for construction permits, followed by Form 302-FM or equivalent for radio and Form 310 for TV, often undergoing auctions for certain spectrum bands post-1993 amendments, though traditional broadcast allocations prioritize comparative evaluations of applicant merit over bidding in many cases.[124][125] Noncommercial applicants use Form 340, emphasizing educational programming commitments.[124] The process can span months to years, involving public notice periods for petitions to deny and potential administrative hearings if competing applications exist.[126] License renewals occur every eight years, with applications (FCC Form 2100, Schedule 303-S) due four months prior to expiration, requiring certifications of compliance with FCC rules, including operational logs, EEO program reports for stations with five or more employees, and evidence of community service such as local programming and responsiveness to public needs.[127][128][129] The FCC presumes renewal for licensees demonstrating "substantial service" unless significant public complaints or violations (e.g., failure to maintain minimum operating hours or technical standards) warrant denial, revocation, or non-renewal after notice and opportunity for hearing.[121][122] Transfers of control or assignments of licenses require prior FCC approval via similar forms, scrutinized for antitrust concerns and continued public interest compliance.[7] Low-power FM (LPFM) and television stations follow abbreviated processes with shorter terms (e.g., seven years for LPFM), prioritizing localism and noncommercial use to expand community access without interfering with full-power operations.[124][130]Content Regulation and Indecency Enforcement
The Federal Communications Commission's authority to regulate broadcast content derives from Section 1464 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which prohibits the use of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication."[131] This applies exclusively to over-the-air radio and television broadcasts, not cable, satellite, or internet services, based on the rationale of limited public spectrum resources justifying government oversight to serve the public interest.[132] Obscene content is banned at all times under the three-pronged Miller test established by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973): it must appeal to the prurient interest of an average person, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner as defined by state law, and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[131] Indecent and profane material is restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., defined by FCC policy as descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs or activities that are patently offensive according to contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.[133] Enforcement typically begins with public complaints reviewed by FCC staff, who assess whether the content meets the indecency criteria using a two-step process: first confirming it involves sexual or excretory matters, then evaluating offensiveness based on factors like explicitness, repetition, and context.[131] Violations can result in fines up to $325,000 per incident or per utterance, a limit increased tenfold by Congress in 2006 amid heightened scrutiny following high-profile incidents.[134] License revocation is possible for repeated offenses, though rarely pursued; instead, the FCC often issues notices of apparent liability or consent decrees.[135] Between 1990 and 2004, the FCC proposed approximately $4.5 million in fines for indecency, with enforcement peaking after public outcry over events like the 2004 Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show, where CBS was fined $550,000 for Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction exposing her breast, upheld in part by the Supreme Court in FCC v. CBS Corp. (2008) on accountability grounds.[136][137] The landmark FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) affirmed the FCC's regulatory power, upholding a reprimand against a New York radio station for airing George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue at 2:00 p.m., which repeated seven profanities; the Court reasoned that broadcast's pervasive accessibility, especially to children, justified contextual restrictions on otherwise protected speech.[138] Enforcement lapsed in the 1970s due to resource constraints and First Amendment concerns but resumed in 1987 with actions against shows like Howard Stern's, leading to over $1 million in proposed fines by the early 1990s.[139] Subsequent cases refined policies: fleeting expletives, such as Bono's 2003 "fucking brilliant" at the Golden Globes, initially evaded fines under a narrow interpretation but prompted stricter guidelines in 2004; however, after FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2009 and 2012), which criticized inconsistent notice and remanded fines for unscripted profanities on Fox broadcasts, the FCC in 2012 abandoned the "fleeting expletives" prohibition, allowing isolated, non-repetitive instances unless highly vulgar.[132] In the 21st century, enforcement has fluctuated with commission leadership and court challenges, totaling fewer than 20 major actions annually by the 2010s amid declining broadcast viewership and digital alternatives.[140] A 2025 consent decree imposed a $222,500 penalty on TEGNA stations for indecent content accessed insecurely online from a broadcast, underscoring ongoing efforts to prevent unauthorized dissemination.[141] Critics, including broadcasters and free speech advocates, argue the standards remain vague and prone to political influence, as evidenced by partisan shifts in enforcement rigor, while supporters cite persistent public complaints—over 100,000 post-Super Bowl—as justification for protecting non-consenting audiences from unsolicited vulgarity.[142] The FCC's approach emphasizes contextual judgment over zero-tolerance, but judicial deference has waned, with courts increasingly scrutinizing due process in applying evolving definitions.[132]Media Ownership Limits and Market Concentration
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposes media ownership limits to foster competition, viewpoint diversity, and localism in broadcasting, though these goals have been debated amid the rise of digital alternatives that fragment audiences and reduce broadcasters' market power.[143] Enacted under statutory mandates like Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the rules undergo quadrennial reviews to assess necessity in the public interest, with the FCC required to repeal or modify limits lacking empirical justification for continued restriction.[144] As of 2025, the national television ownership cap restricts any entity to stations reaching no more than 39% of U.S. television households, a threshold set by Congress in 2004 and exempt from routine review, though proposals to update or eliminate it cite broadcasters' declining share against streaming competitors.[145][146] Local ownership rules permit an entity to own up to two commercial television stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA), subject to divestiture if combinations exceed audience share thresholds in smaller markets, while radio caps vary by market size—for instance, up to eight stations in the largest markets (allowing two AM and seven FM under certain conditions).[143][147] The 1996 Act significantly relaxed prior nationwide limits (e.g., seven stations per service) by tying caps to audience reach and authorizing duopolies, enabling consolidation that boosted revenues but drew scrutiny for potential viewpoint homogenization.[71] Cross-ownership restrictions, prohibiting common control of newspapers and broadcast stations in the same market since 1975, were partially eased post-1996 but reinstated in part during the 2008 quadrennial review, with a federal court in July 2025 striking down the "top-four" television station prohibition in local markets as arbitrary.[148][149] Market concentration has intensified under these rules, with firms like Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group approaching the 39% national cap through attributable interests in affiliates, controlling over 100 stations each by 2024 and capturing significant local ad revenue despite overall linear TV decline to $126.1 billion in 2024 from $146.9 billion in 2020.[150] Empirical analyses of 1990s deregulation indicate consolidation raised station revenues by enabling efficiencies, with no clear evidence of reduced local news output or viewership in affected markets, countering claims of diversity erosion amid abundant non-broadcast options.[151][152] The 2022 Quadrennial Review, advanced in September 2025, proposes further modernization to reflect digital competition, arguing outdated caps hinder broadcasters' scale against unregulated platforms while failing to demonstrably enhance competition or pluralism.[153] Critics from advocacy groups assert risks to independent voices, but FCC analyses emphasize that cable, online video, and social media dilute any monopoly concerns, with concentration levels below thresholds seen in pre-1996 eras.[143][154]Digital Television and Broadcast Transitions
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) A/53 standard for digital television transmission on December 24, 1996, marking the regulatory foundation for replacing analog National Television System Committee (NTSC) broadcasts with digital signals capable of supporting high-definition video, multiple subchannels, and improved audio within existing 6 MHz channel allocations.[155] In 1997, the FCC issued a Table of Digital Television Allotments, assigning interim digital channels—primarily in the UHF band—to over 1,600 full-power analog stations to enable a phased simulcast of analog and digital signals during the transition period.[156] This allotment preserved broadcasters' spectrum rights while preparing for the recovery of analog frequencies post-transition. Congress established a firm deadline for the end of full-power analog broadcasting through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, initially setting February 17, 2009, as the date for stations to cease analog transmissions and operate solely in digital format, with provisions for reallocating the recovered UHF spectrum (channels 52–69, totaling 108 MHz) to public safety and commercial mobile services. To mitigate disruptions for the estimated 13–19 million U.S. households relying solely on over-the-air analog reception, the Act authorized up to $990 million for a digital-to-analog converter box coupon program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), providing $40 subsidies toward certified boxes costing $50–$70 to enable older TVs to decode ATSC signals. The FCC certified eligible converter boxes and collaborated on consumer education efforts, including public service announcements and a national readiness campaign, as surveys indicated widespread unawareness and low adoption rates.[157] Facing evidence of insufficient preparation—such as only 4.5 million coupons redeemed by early 2009 and projections of 6–7 million unprepared households—Congress enacted the DTV Delay Act on February 11, 2009, postponing the deadline to June 12, 2009, to allow additional time for equipment distribution and education.[158] On June 12, 2009, over 1,000 full-power stations nationwide terminated analog signals, completing the transition for approximately 98% of U.S. households; low-power and Class A stations followed later under separate FCC rules.[79] The shift freed the entire 700 MHz band (698–806 MHz) for reallocation, with 24 MHz dedicated to public safety broadband and the remainder auctioned by the FCC, yielding over $19 billion in initial proceeds by 2014 and enabling expanded wireless broadband deployment.[159] Digital broadcasting's spectral efficiency—delivering up to six times more data capacity than analog—facilitated these outcomes, though the process incurred $2.7 billion in total federal costs, including expanded coupon funding to $1.5 billion amid high demand exceeding 64 million requests.[160]Wireline and Internet Policies
Traditional Telephone Regulation and Monopoly Breakup
The Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with authority to regulate interstate and foreign wire communications, including telephone services, by designating telephone companies as common carriers required to offer nondiscriminatory service at just and reasonable rates.[50] This framework treated the telephone network as a public utility, with the FCC approving tariffs, enforcing interconnection obligations, and promoting universal service to ensure nationwide access, particularly in rural areas.[161] AT&T, through its Bell System, held a government-sanctioned monopoly on local exchange and long-distance services, controlling approximately 80% of U.S. telephones by the mid-20th century; FCC rate regulation capped profits but shielded the company from competitive entry, fostering a stable but stagnant infrastructure.[162] Early FCC interventions began eroding AT&T's vertical integration. In the 1956 Hush-a-Phone decision, the FCC permitted attachment of a mechanical device to telephone handsets despite AT&T's objections, establishing limits on equipment exclusivity.[163] This precedent expanded in the 1968 Carterfone ruling, which prohibited AT&T from restricting customer-provided equipment interconnected via specialized interfaces, enabling independent suppliers to enter the market and spurring innovations like private branch exchanges.[163] By the 1970s, microwave common carriers and other entrants challenged long-distance exclusivity, prompting the FCC's 1971 Specialized Common Carrier decision to authorize competitive facilities-based services, which increased pressure on AT&T's dominance.[164] The monopoly's dissolution culminated in antitrust action led by the Department of Justice (DOJ), not the FCC, though regulatory precedents informed the case. Filed in 1974, United States v. AT&T alleged monopolization of local and long-distance markets; the suit settled via the Modified Final Judgment on January 8, 1982, requiring divestiture of AT&T's 22 local operating companies into seven independent Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) effective January 1, 1984.[161][163] The FCC facilitated the transition by restructuring access charges—initially set high to subsidize local rates but later reduced amid competition—and overseeing equal access to the network, which enabled long-distance carriers like MCI to compete directly with AT&T.[161] Post-divestiture, long-distance rates fell by over 40% within a decade due to competition, though local service remained regulated regionally until further deregulations.[165] Critics, including some economists, argue the FCC's pre-breakup rate averaging distorted incentives and delayed innovation, while the divestiture itself imposed short-term costs exceeding $1 billion in restructuring without proportionally enhancing welfare until market forces matured.[161]Broadband Deployment and Infrastructure Rules
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) administers the Universal Service Fund (USF), which supports broadband deployment in high-cost, rural, and underserved areas through programs like the Connect America Fund (CAF) and the 5G Fund, requiring recipients to meet specific deployment milestones for voice and broadband services at reasonable rates.[166][167] The High-Cost program, a core USF component, has disbursed billions to expand fixed and mobile broadband, with carriers filing FCC Form 481 to report progress and ensure accountability for funded deployments.[167] As of the FCC's Sixth Broadband Deployment Report in 2016—updated periodically—substantial gaps persisted, with estimates of 14 to 24 million Americans lacking access, prompting ongoing reforms to prioritize efficient allocation amid criticisms that duplicative subsidies overlook private sector-driven closures of deployment gaps.[168][169] To accelerate infrastructure buildout, the FCC enforces rules under Section 224 of the Communications Act governing pole attachments, which allow broadband providers to access utility poles for fiber and wireless facilities while allocating costs and timelines to minimize delays.[170] In July 2025, the FCC adopted updates codifying timelines for large attachments (e.g., 60-90 days for surveys and make-ready), advance notice requirements for mid-sized projects, and expedited dispute resolution to reduce bottlenecks, building on prior reforms that imposed shot clocks on state and local approvals under Sections 253 and 332.[171][172] These measures apply in 27 states under FCC jurisdiction, as 23 states and the District of Columbia have "reverse preempted" federal oversight, though the rules aim to harmonize processes nationwide by clarifying cost-sharing and prohibiting unreasonable refusals.[173] The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 enhanced FCC broadband efforts, including $14.2 billion for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided up to $30 monthly subsidies for low-income households to promote adoption alongside deployment, though the program faced funding exhaustion by mid-2024 amid debates over its necessity given market expansions.[174] The FCC also implemented IIJA's Section 60506 via rules adopted in 2023 prohibiting digital discrimination in broadband access based on discriminatory practices, with enforcement emphasizing equal treatment in deployment decisions rather than quotas.[175] Complementing NTIA's Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program—allocating $42.45 billion for state-led infrastructure—the FCC maintains a Broadband Funding Map tracking federal investments and supports streamlined permitting to avoid overlaps with private builds.[176] Ongoing notices of proposed rulemaking, such as the July 2025 proposal for further pole processing efficiencies, reflect persistent challenges like utility delays and environmental reviews impeding timely rollout.[177]Net Neutrality Rules and Repeals
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) first addressed open Internet principles in its 2010 Open Internet Order, adopted on December 23, 2010, which established three basic rules prohibiting broadband providers from blocking lawful content, applications, or services, and from unreasonable discrimination in transmission, while requiring transparency in network management practices; these rules applied to both fixed and mobile broadband but treated broadband Internet access service (BIAS) as an information service under Title I of the Communications Act rather than a telecommunications service under Title II.[178] The 2010 rules faced legal challenges, leading to a 2014 D.C. Circuit Court decision vacating parts of them for exceeding FCC authority without proper classification.[179] On February 26, 2015, the FCC voted 3-2 to adopt the 2015 Open Internet Order, reclassifying BIAS as a Title II telecommunications service to invoke common carrier obligations, thereby restoring authority for enforceable rules after the 2014 court setback; this order reinstated and strengthened the prior prohibitions on blocking and unreasonable discrimination, added a ban on paid prioritization (no "fast lanes" for extra fees), and included a general conduct standard against practices harming openness, with exemptions from certain Title II provisions like tariffing and unbundling to mitigate regulatory burden.[179][180] The rules took effect on June 12, 2015, and were upheld by the D.C. Circuit in June 2016, which affirmed the FCC's reclassification rationale based on broadband providers' integrated control over last-mile infrastructure and backend services.[181] The FCC reversed course on December 14, 2017, with a 3-2 vote adopting the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which repealed the 2015 Title II reclassification, returning BIAS to Title I information service status to reduce regulatory burdens and promote investment; it eliminated the bright-line rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, relying instead on enhanced transparency disclosures, case-by-case enforcement under Section 706 authority, and a one-year "pause" on Title II application to mobile broadband.[182][183] The repeal took effect on June 11, 2018, following court affirmation by the D.C. Circuit in October 2019, which upheld the FCC's shift citing evidence of slowed broadband investment post-2015 reclassification and arguing Title II's outdated utility-style framework mismatched the dynamic IP-based Internet ecosystem.[184] In April 2024, the FCC again voted 3-2 on April 25 to reinstate net neutrality via a new Open Internet Order, reclassifying BIAS under Title II and restoring the 2015 bright-line rules plus additional provisions banning practices like cybersecurity threats or data caps applied discriminatorily; the order aimed to address perceived gaps in state-level protections and ISP behaviors post-2017, but faced immediate industry challenges asserting overreach absent evidence of widespread harms under the light-touch regime.[185][186] On January 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the 2024 order in its entirety, ruling the FCC lacked statutory authority for Title II reclassification of broadband—a functionally integrated, information-service-dominant offering—especially after the Supreme Court's 2024 Loper Bright decision eliminating Chevron deference to agency interpretations; the court found the FCC's justification relied on speculative harms rather than concrete evidence, leaving no federal net neutrality mandates in place as of October 2025.[187][188]Wireless and Spectrum Policies
Commercial Mobile Services and Spectrum Auctions
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) classifies certain wireless services as commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) under Section 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. CMRS encompasses mobile services provided for profit, made available indiscriminately to the public, and interconnected with the public switched telephone network, or services substantially similar thereto, such as cellular, personal communications services (PCS), and mobile broadband offerings. This classification subjects CMRS providers to licensing requirements under Title III of the Act, treating them as common carriers for interconnection and numbering purposes, while granting forbearance from many traditional Title II economic regulations to foster competition.[189] Prior to CMRS reforms, cellular services operated under stricter common carrier rules, but the 1993 amendments and subsequent FCC actions shifted regulation toward a lighter-touch framework, emphasizing market entry and service innovation over rate regulation.[190] Spectrum allocation for CMRS has relied heavily on competitive auctions since their authorization by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993), which amended the Communications Act to permit the FCC to use competitive bidding for mutually exclusive license applications, replacing inefficient methods like lotteries and comparative hearings that often favored politically connected applicants over efficient users.[191] OBRA 1993 directed the FCC to auction spectrum for services including PCS and other CMRS bands, aiming to promote efficient allocation, generate federal revenue, and accelerate deployment of advanced mobile technologies. The FCC conducted its first auction on July 25, 1994, for narrowband PCS licenses, marking the shift to market-based mechanisms that have since awarded over 22,000 licenses and raised more than $233 billion in gross proceeds, with a significant portion funding deficit reduction and universal service programs.[88] Auctions employ simultaneous multiple-round formats to reveal bidder valuations and prevent collusion, ensuring spectrum reaches high-value users capable of deploying nationwide mobile networks.[191] Key spectrum auctions have targeted mid- and high-band frequencies critical for CMRS evolution from voice to data-intensive broadband. For instance, early PCS auctions in the 1.9 GHz band enabled the entry of new competitors like PCS licensees, expanding beyond the duopoly of analog cellular providers.[192] More recently, Auction 107 for the 3.7-3.98 GHz (C-band) spectrum in 2020-2021 grossed $81.17 billion, with Verizon and AT&T acquiring the bulk to bolster 5G capacity in populated areas.[193] Auction 110 for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band concluded in 2022 with $22.51 billion in bids, prioritizing nationwide coverage for military-compatible mobile broadband.[194]| Auction | Band/Frequency | Start/End Dates | Gross Proceeds | Primary Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auction 4 (Broadband PCS) | 1.85-1.91 GHz, 1.93-1.99 GHz | 1994-1996 | ~$7.0 billion (initial blocks) | Entry-level digital mobile voice/data |
| Auction 73 (700 MHz) | 698-806 MHz | 2008 | $19.6 billion (net) | Lower mid-band for wide-area 4G coverage |
| Auction 107 (C-band) | 3.7-3.98 GHz | Dec 2020-Feb 2021 | $81.17 billion | Mid-band 5G in dense urban areas |
| Auction 110 (DoD 3.45 GHz) | 3.45-3.55 GHz | Oct 2021-Jan 2022 | $22.51 billion | Protected mid-band for commercial 5G |
