Notice2025-21318
Empowering Local Broadcast TV Stations To Meet Their Public Interest Obligations: Exploring Market Dynamics Between National Programmers and Their Affiliates
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 28, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Media Bureau seeks comment on the current market, regulatory, and contractual dynamics governing the relationship between local television broadcast stations and national programmers in order to identify any barriers that may be preventing local broadcast televisions stations from meeting their public interest obligations and responding to the needs of their local communities.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 227 (Friday, November 28, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 227 (Friday, November 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54686-54688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21318]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket No. 25-322; DA 25-961; FR ID 319167]
Empowering Local Broadcast TV Stations To Meet Their Public
Interest Obligations: Exploring Market Dynamics Between National
Programmers and Their Affiliates
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Media Bureau seeks comment on the
current market, regulatory, and contractual dynamics governing the
relationship between local television broadcast stations and national
programmers in order to identify any barriers that may be preventing
local broadcast televisions stations from meeting their public interest
obligations and responding to the needs of their local communities.
DATES: Comments are due by December 10, 2025. Reply Comments are due by
December 24, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 25-322,
electronically or on paper. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific
information and addresses for electronic or paper filings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Berthot, Federal Communications
Commission, Media Bureau, Policy Division, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e7ac86938f9ec9a58295938f8893a7818484c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d79cb6a3bfaef995b2a5a3bfb8a397b1b4b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>, (202)
418-7454.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Media Bureau's
Public Notice, Empowering Local Broadcast TV Stations to Meet Their
Public Interest Obligations: Exploring Market Dynamics Between National
Programmers and Their Affiliates, MB Docket No. 25-322, DA 25-961,
released on November 19, 2025. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection and can be downloaded at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-961A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-961A1.pdf</a>. Alternative formats
are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b7b2b2e4e1e591b7b2b2ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ddbbbebee8ede99dbbbebef3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Comment Period and Filing Procedures. Interested parties may file
comments on or before the dates provided in the DATES section of this
document. Comments must be filed in MB Docket No. 25-322. Comments may
be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
<bullet> All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Procedural Matters
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Public Notice initiates shall
be treated as an ``exempt'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible and
need not be publicly disclosed, but may be if the presenter chooses.
Synopsis
Congress has provided the FCC with broad and expansive authority
over the provision of broadcast television service. Specifically,
television broadcasters are required by both the Communications Act and
the terms of their FCC-issued licenses to operate in the public
interest. Television broadcasters have this public interest obligation
because the government has given them the privilege of using a scarce
national resource--the public airwaves--and in doing so has necessarily
excluded others that might want to broadcast their own programming over
that spectrum. This public interest obligation distinguishes television
broadcasters from other types of program distributors, including cable
companies, streaming services, podcasts, and more, that were never
given free access to the public airwaves or a federal license to
broadcast on that spectrum.
By this Public Notice, the Media Bureau continues its efforts to
empower local television broadcasters to meet their public interest
obligations. Consistent with longstanding FCC precedent and rules, we
want to identify any barriers that may be preventing local broadcast
televisions stations from meeting their public interest obligations and
responding to the needs of their local communities. In doing so, we
will focus here on seeking comment on the current market, regulatory,
and contractual dynamics governing the relationship between local
television broadcast stations on the one hand and national programmers
on the other.
The obligation to operate a broadcast television station in the
public interest is fundamental to holding Commission licenses. This
obligation predates the Commission and the Communications Act of 1934,
having been codified in the Radio Act of 1927. Consistent with the
First Amendment, the Commission has afforded licensees leeway in
meeting this obligation. But courts have long held that the First
Amendment does not relieve a licensee of its public interest
obligation, nor does it absolve the Commission of its statutory duty to
ensure those licensees meet public interest requirements.
[[Page 54687]]
Much of the programming that viewers associate with TV programming
is in fact provided by a national network programmer through a local
broadcast TV station that affiliates with the national programmer. In
these arrangements, the local broadcast TV affiliate station is the
actual holder of the broadcast license. As the holder of a broadcast
license, it is incumbent upon the licensee--not the network--to ensure
that it is meeting its public interest obligation by providing
programming that serves the needs of the communities it serves.
Nonetheless, the FCC has been clear over the years that the
relationships between local television stations and the national
programmers are relevant to the FCC's enforcement of the public
interest standard.
Despite the importance of the network/affiliate relationship to
broadcasters' fulfillment of their public interest obligations, the FCC
has not undertaken a review of the complex issues raised by that
relationship in more than 15 years. Stakeholders representing the
interests of affiliated or local television broadcasters have suggested
that, in this time, an imbalance has developed in this relationship--
that the horizontally and vertically integrated companies that now own
national programming networks, cable companies, and streaming platforms
can overpower affiliated broadcast television stations. This imbalance,
in their view, frustrates local broadcasters in their efforts to
fulfill their public interest obligations. Although the FCC does not
directly regulate the national programmers as such, the Supreme Court
has held that the relationship between networks and affiliates is well
within the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction. Indeed, the FCC has
long had rules on its book that regulate the rights that national
programmers can obtain from local television broadcasters.
This Public Notice is an important step in gathering the
information needed to consider whether the national programming
networks are exerting undue influence or control over their affiliate
stations, whether the Commission's rules are operating to ensure the
independence of affiliate stations, and whether the Commission's rules
require any clarification or amendment to ensure that local affiliates
are empowered to meet their statutory public interest obligations.
Changes in the network/affiliate relationship. We seek comment on
the status of the relationship between the national programmers and
affiliated local broadcast TV stations and how their relative
bargaining positions may have changed in recent years. How have changes
in the broadcast industry, such as consolidation of station ownership
and the introduction of NextGen TV, affected the relative bargaining
positions of networks and their affiliates? How have changes in the
broader market for video programming, including the rapid growth of
streaming services and cord-cutting by consumers, impacted these
relative bargaining positions? Do these impacts differ for or among Big
Four (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) network affiliates and non-Big Four
network affiliates? We also seek comment on the relative bargaining
positions of large station group owners as compared to smaller station
group owners and single stations in negotiating affiliation agreements
with networks today. Are smaller station group owners and single
stations typically subject to more onerous and restrictive terms in
their affiliation agreements with networks?
Licensee control over station programming and operations. Under the
Communications Act and the Commission's rules, affiliates, as the
licensees of local television stations, must retain ultimate control
over programming, operations, and other critical decisions with respect
to their stations, and network affiliations must not undermine this
control. We seek comment on whether and how network affiliation
agreements or the current dynamics of the network/affiliate
relationship may be impeding the ability of affiliates to maintain
ultimate control over the critical decisions of their stations,
including station programming and operations.
We seek comment on whether such control is attributable to
restrictive conditions in affiliation agreements or a result of an
imbalance of power between the networks and their affiliates or other
factors. Are there other network practices today that hinder the
ability of their affiliate stations to maintain control over
programming decisions? For example, many local affiliates object to
provisions that limit their ability to negotiate directly with certain
video programming distributors. Should the Commission amend or clarify
its rules to address any such situations and, if so, how? What other
steps can the Commission take to help ensure that network practices do
not undermine the ability of stations to maintain ultimate control over
their programming and operations?
Commission rules governing affiliation agreements. We seek comment
on how networks are currently handling their relationships with
affiliates with regard to the specific program practices governed by
Section 73.658 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 73.658. Section 73.658
includes the exclusive affiliation rule; the territorial exclusivity
rule; the option-time rule; the right to reject rule; and the dual
network rule. Are the requirements of the Commission's rules generally
observed or are there general or specific instances where network
agreements violate the requirements or undermine the purpose and intent
of the requirements? Commenters are encouraged to provide specific
examples. What impact does such conduct have on the ability of local
stations to serve the needs and interests of their communities? Have
market conditions changed in the time since these rules were adopted in
a manner that necessitates further Commission guidance on or
clarification of these requirements? What other actions can the
Commission take to ensure compliance with these requirements?
Consistent with the FCC's right to reject rule, we seek comment in
particular regarding the preemption of national programming by local
broadcast TV stations. As indicated in that rule, the FCC has
determined that affiliation agreements should not include provisions
that limit right-to-reject preemptions for ``greater local or national
importance'' to breaking news events or any other specific type of
programming; prevent affiliates from rejecting a program as
``unsatisfactory or unsuitable or contrary to the public interest''
because they have carried a similar network program in the past; or
impose monetary or nonmonetary penalties on affiliates based on
preemptions protected by the right-to-reject rule. Should the FCC
consider any changes to this rule? Are national programmers able to
take actions or threaten to punish local broadcast TV stations that
attempt to exercise their lawful right to preempt national programming?
Networks' undue influence over affiliation agreements. We also seek
input on the extent to which networks use their positions in the market
to unduly influence the terms of the affiliation agreements with their
affiliate stations. For instance, the national programming networks
have moved some popular programming from broadcast television to their
streaming platforms, and sometimes simulcast marquee network sports
programming, such as the Super Bowl and the Olympics, on their
streaming platforms. Does a network's growing focus on their streaming
platforms suggest that the networks hold considerable leverage today in
their contract negotiations with
[[Page 54688]]
their affiliates? We seek comment on the extent to which networks may
be using leverage to impose burdensome and restrictive terms in the
affiliation agreements with their local affiliate stations. How have
such terms impacted the ability of affiliate stations to operate as
trusted sources of local news and other local programming and carry out
other essential operational functions? Are there actions that the
Commission could take to help restore the balance in the network/
affiliate relationship and ensure that networks are not exercising
undue influence over the terms of affiliation agreements?
Good faith negotiations between networks and their affiliates.
Broadcast television stations and multichannel video programming
distributors (MVPDs) are required under the Communications Act and the
Commission's rules to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith.
The focus of the good faith bargaining rules is not on the substantive
terms of retransmission consent negotiations but rather is to ensure
that the parties ``meet to negotiate retransmission consent and that
such negotiations are conducted in an atmosphere of honesty, purpose,
and clarity of process.'' We seek comment on whether the network/
affiliate negotiation process would benefit from adoption of similar
good faith bargaining rules. We also seek comment on what authority, if
any, the Commission has to adopt good faith bargaining rules for
networks and their affiliate stations.
Future Rulemaking. If the Commission were to consider initiating a
broader proceeding, what other policy alternatives might foster
competition in affiliate negotiations? In 1941, for instance, the
Commission issued its Chain Broadcasting Report, which was designed to
address inequities between radio networks and their affiliated
stations. In the early 1940s, radio broadcasting in the United States
was almost exclusively provided by four national AM radio networks,
similar to today's television broadcast market, which is dominated by
the four large networks that are now horizontally integrated, owning
multiple service platforms and stations, including cable, broadcasting,
and streaming services. In the Chain Broadcasting Report, the
Commission found that certain regulations were necessary to address
unfair practices in negotiations between the radio networks and local
affiliate stations. For example, the report stated that affiliates
should be allowed to broadcast programs of other networks as well as to
schedule their own programs. Should the Commission consider adopting
regulations similar to these in light of the changes in the broadcast
market that have led to anticompetitive leverage and behavior by large
networks?
Remedial Actions. If the FCC subsequently determines that certain
contract provisions and related network practices should be prohibited
by rule, we seek comment on how to address offending affiliate
agreements in order to restore full control of the license to the
affiliate. For example, should the Commission simply declare that such
provisions are unenforceable and/or provide a safe harbor for
affiliates and networks to renegotiate their agreements within a
specified period of time not to exceed the next renewal filing period
for television stations? Moving forward, should he Commission engage in
a more detailed review of affiliate agreements when reviewing license
renewals in order to detect and address discriminatory or
anticompetitive terms? We seek comment on these and other remedial
provisions as possible avenues for the Commission to explore in
addressing these marketplace issues.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2025-21318 Filed 11-26-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 28, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.