Tag: fcc

‘Unprecedented’ Power Grab: FCC, Congress Race to Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and federal lawmakers are pushing to make it easy for telecom companies to erect cell towers in communities without residents’ consent — even if the tower isn’t really needed to close a coverage gap in cell service.

If either the agency or Congress succeeds, communities will lose the right to keep unwanted towers and other wireless infrastructure away from their homes and schools, according to Miriam Eckenfels, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program.

“This is the most aggressive push we’ve ever seen to override local zoning, erase public participation, and force dense wireless infrastructure into residential areas under the guise of streamlining wireless infrastructure deployment,” Eckenfels said.

On Wednesday, the U.S House Committee on Energy and Commerce advanced H.R. 2289, the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025, in a 26-24 vote along party lines, with Democrats opposing it. A floor vote has yet to be scheduled as of press time.

If passed, the bill would allow wireless companies to install towers and antennas wherever they decide, regardless of whether local residents want the equipment, Eckenfels said.

The FCC, the federal agency that oversees telecommunications, is working on its own similar strategy. On Dec. 1, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register about a proposed rule to “free towers and other wireless infrastructure from unlawful regulatory burdens.”

Eckenfels called H.R. 2289 a “legislative shortcut” for what the FCC wants to accomplish.

The FCC and lawmakers don’t want any roadblocks to installing more wireless infrastructure, said tech attorney Odette Wilkens, president and general counsel for the nonprofit Wired Broadband, Inc. “They see community input as an obstacle, and they see it as a regulatory barrier because the zoning ordinances on the local level protect the people.”

Across the country, residents have been successfully keeping new cell towers and antennas from going up next to their homes and schools.

Eckenfels said she thinks these successes prompted the FCC — which is captured by the wireless industry — and lawmakers who favor the wireless industry to push the measures.

Wilkens agreed. “The reason for HR 2289 is to prevent any further litigation and any further successes that people have had across the country in stopping cell towers,” she said.

Eckenfels called the FCC and Congress’ proposed actions an “unprecedented federal power grab” that would “strip away state and local powers, and force communities to accept more cell towers, more antennas and more industrial equipment — without meaningful review, without due process and without the ability to say no.”

Keep reading

Historic New Mexico Town Blocks Cell Tower After Consulting Lawyer Featured in The Defender

Residents of San Cristóbal, New Mexico, a historic valley in Taos County, successfully blocked a 195-foot cell tower from being built in their community after teaming up with a telecommunications attorney featured in The Defender.

San Cristóbal residents contacted attorney Robert Berg on Sept. 19, after reading a Sept. 18 article in The Defender. The article featured Berg’s work representing communities that opposed cell towers or wireless antennas near homes and schools.

Berg agreed to represent the residents in person and praised their teamwork. “It’s a remarkable group of people — and a remarkable valley,” he said.

On Oct. 14, the Taos County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 to overturn the Planning Commission’s July approval of a special use permit for Skyway Towers, a Tampa-based company that builds cell towers on speculation.

“Our community was united in opposition to this tower because we know that better alternatives exist,” Mandy Sackett, a San Cristóbal resident, told The Defender. “It’s heartening that the county commissioners took our voices seriously.”

The San Cristóbal residents’ victory comes as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — the agency that oversees wireless infrastructure — is proposing new rules that would hand the wireless industry sweeping control over where cell towers are built, according to an Oct. 17 Children’s Health Defense (CHD) action alert.

If adopted, the rules would eliminate public hearings for conditional and special use permits and automatically approve new tower applications after 150 days.

Keep reading

FCC Threats Against Jimmy Kimmel Echo a Century of Speech Control

Days after the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Jimmy Kimmel joked on his show that the “MAGA gang [was] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” This prompted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr to threaten network broadcasting licenses, alleging that Kimmel’s show violates “public interest, convenience or necessity,” and to tell ABC that this could be resolved “the easy way or the hard way.” The following day, ABC announced the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel LIVE!—a decision it reversed on Monday after public outcry. 

Many conservatives, trying to remember where they put their keys and their beefs about cancel culture, see this as the way the cookie crumbles. Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), however, believes that Carr was wrong and called this “mafioso” behavior “dangerous.” The dispute highlights a century-old tension: political control over broadcast licenses and the power to shave free speech.

Broadcast TV and radio authorizations—held by stations in the ABC network—state that private companies cannot claim ownership of the radio spectrum. Access to airwaves is a privilege, not a right. This dates to the 1927 Radio Act, proposed by then–Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover and signed by President Calvin Coolidge. Its rules were repeated virtually verbatim in the 1934 Communications Act, amended in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and constitute today’s law of the land.

The greatest problem with censorship is the ease with which subtle demands by politicians slant the news, particularly in the choice (or rejection) of controversial topics. But it is the law backing up the government’s powerful authority that makes that influence work. Fred Friendly’s fascinating book The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, describes one of the sensational cases where a permit to speak was actually cancelled. In the WXUR case, a Philadelphia station was operated by the highly opinionated Rev. Carl McIntire, a “suspended” Presbyterian minister. Although his organization raised $5,000 to support Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, McIntire was considered an antisemite by the National Council of Churches, the Urban League, and the B’nai B’rith. They objected to his “intemperate attacks on other religious denominations…and political officials.” The organizations called for McIntire’s broadcast license to be revoked (denied for renewal) by the FCC because its programs “help[ed] create a climate of fear, prejudice and distrust of democratic institutions.” 

McIntire lost WXUR in 1973—the only time such a right was extinguished under the so-called Fairness Doctrine. But legions of speakers have been cowed and hushed. As early as 1929, the left-wing stations WEVD (named for Eugene V. Debs) and WCFL (owned by the Chicago Federation of Labor) were warned about espousing their radical views. WEVD was accused in a 1929 renewal at the Federal Radio Commission of being “the mouthpiece of the Socialist Party.” WCFL was branded a “propaganda” outlet. Both enterprises read the room and backed away from their edgy politics and full-time line-ups. WCFL merged into the NBC conglomerate, while WEVD—cadging donations to stay alive—limped along by sharing most of the week’s broadcast time with commercial outlets. 

One of the great 20th century judicial liberals, D.C. Senior Court of Appeals judge David Bazelon, originally supported the FCC’s attack on McIntire’s ownership of WXUR. His First Amendment rights were compromised, under the 1943 NBC Supreme Court verdict, based on the “physical scarcity” doctrine. This posits that there are only a limited number of frequencies—a limit imposed by nature, not the government—and so the regulator has to select the best content to fill those slots. It was an uncompelling argument at the time: Resources in limited supply are sold to bidders every day without FCC (or other) administrative assignment. There are actually unlimited spectral slots, not just counting what technology might deliver (tell me the top limit on satellite radio channels or Internet radio stations), but in divvying the old AM dial into finer slices. 

Keep reading

The FCC’s Involvement in Canceling Jimmy Kimmel Was ‘Unbelievably Dangerous,’ Ted Cruz Says

Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) is happy that ABC decided to indefinitely suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show. But like Fox News political analyst Brit Hume, Cruz is not happy about the role that Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), played in that decision. By threatening TV stations that carried Jimmy Kimmel Live! with fines and license revocation, Cruz warned in his podcast on Friday, Carr set a dangerous precedent that could invite similar treatment of conservative speech under a future administration.

“I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said,” Cruz declared, referring to the September 15 monologue in which the late-night comedian erroneously suggested that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah five days earlier, was part of the MAGA movement. “I am thrilled that he was fired. But let me tell you: If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.”

In an interview with right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday, Carr warned that there are “actions we can take on licensed broadcasters” that dared to air Kimmel’s show, including “fines or license revocations.” He added that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Either “these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel,” he said, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Hours later, Nexstar, which owns 32 ABC affiliate stations, announced that it would preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! “for the foreseeable future beginning with tonight’s show.” Sinclair, which owns 38 ABC affiliates, likewise said it would “indefinitely preempt” Jimmy Kimmel Live! beginning that night. ABC, which produces the programming aired by those affiliates and owns eight of the network’s stations, fell in line the same night, saying it would “indefinitely” suspend the show.

Cruz likened Carr to a mafioso. “He says, ‘We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,'” the senator noted. “And I got to say, that’s right out of Goodfellas. That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar [and] going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.'”

Keep reading

ABC’s ‘The View’ In Spotlight After Jimmy Kimmel Suspended, Says FCC Chairman

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr said in an interview that ABC’s “The View” could be investigated after Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”, was suspended earlier this week over remarks he made about the late Charlie Kirk.

“I would assume you could make the argument that ‘The View’ is a bona fide news show, but I’m not so sure about that,” Carr said on “The Scott Jennings Radio Show” on Sept. 18.

“And I think it’s worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether ‘The View’ and some of the programs that you have still qualify as bona fide news programs and therefore exempt from the equal opportunity regime that Congress has put in place.”

“The View,” a daytime talk show, is hosted by Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, Sara Haines, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and Ana Navarro.

ABC suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” indefinitely after a group of ABC-affiliated stations said it would not air the show following comments Kimmel made about the assassination of Kirk, a conservative influencer, during an episode earlier this week.

Kimmel appeared to suggest that the suspected assassin, Tyler Robinson, was a supporter of President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.

Prosecutors have said that Robinson allegedly had left-wing and pro-transgender views.

Carr said that Kimmel was attempting to mislead the public with his on-air statements.

“The issue that arose here, where lots and lots of people were upset, was not a joke,” Carr told CNBC on Thursday.

“It was appearing to directly mislead the American public about a significant fact.”

Under the FCC’s jurisdiction, ABC, CBS, and NBC have special requirements to “operate within the public interest,” Carr said on Sept. 17.

“Broadcasters are different than any other form of communication.”

Keep reading

Jimmy Kimmel Blatantly Broke FCC Rules And Brendan Carr Was Right To Notice

CC Chairman Brendan Carr has done the impossible: He got ABC to consider the tone of its often offensively partisan programming and make a change. Disney-owned ABC abruptly pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! from its broadcast lineup late Wednesday, hopefully ending Kimmel’s ugly career.

The move is more likely in response to Carr’s threat of consequences for ABC, issued on The Benny Show podcast with Benny Johnson, than Kimmel’s unfunny, untrue monologue insulting the conservative movement while it mourns the senseless loss of one of its brightest lights.  

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said.

It was a tone-deaf pack of lies. The alleged assassin is not MAGA. At 22 he is not a kid. And he has numerous overtly leftist characteristics. Kimmel tried to throw his viewers off the scent of the truth, and, with a sickening mirth, kicked hurting people while they are down. The few fools who still watched his show surely assumed his words were true. Many people get their news from so-called comedy monologues and assume the premise of the “joke” is at least accurate.    

Keep reading

FCC Is Finally Going After Corporate Media Hacks, And Democrats Are Outraged

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr joked recently that “[m]ore Americans trust gas station sushi than the legacy national media.” That statement, sad but true (or perhaps not so sad), is indicative of the new Trump chair’s approach to his job: to call out the powerhouse institutions that have long gotten a free pass on their relentless bias, illegal DEI practices, and general disservice to the American people. The chairman has had enough, and the left is losing its collective mind as a result.

The current iteration of that fight is prompted by a complaint filed by my organization, the Center for American Rights, against CBS for its misleading editing of then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ interview with 60 Minutes. The chairman has taken those charges seriously (as he should) and held a public comment period that ended this week. Numerous everyday Americans spoke up, critical of CBS’s electioneering, while left-wing senators and media groups are outraged at the supposed assault on the First Amendment.

Typical is Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who has opened an “Inquiry into FCC’s Political Targeting of Newsrooms” from his post as ranking member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In his release announcing the probe, Blumenthal lambasts the FCC for its “unprecedented, intrusive investigations against media broadcasters under arbitrary and capricious pretenses.” The senator is concerned that these “vexatious investigation[s]” by the FCC “may be designed to intimidate newsrooms,” so he’s apparently decided to launch his own investigation to intimidate the chairman into dropping the commission’s investigations. 

Democrat Sens. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, and Gary Peters of Michigan sent a similar letter blasting the chairman, intoning against the agency “weaponizing its authority over broadcasters and public media for political purposes.”

That’s rich coming from anyone who supported the Biden administration’s weaponization of the U.S. Department of Justice against pro-life grandmas and K-12 school moms. But it’s especially ironic coming from Blumenthal and Markey. 

Keep reading

FCC’s Brendan Carr Advances Investigation into NPR, PBS Running ‘Prohibited’ Ads

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr advanced his investigation into NPR and PBS running “prohibited” commercials.

Carr ordered an investigation in early January into the taxpayer-funded NPR and PBS, believing the nonprofits are running commercials that they are barred from airing.

“I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials,” Carr wrote at the time. “In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”

Public broadcasting stations are prohibited from running commercials, and instead they often air corporate underwriting spots, which cannot issue a “call to action” to urge listeners to purchase a product or service.

An FCC source said, at the end of last week, the agency sent out 15 letters of inquiry, two to NPR and PBS, and 13 letters to their affiliates, seeking to know more about their advertising and prospective underwriting practices.

Some of these stations include WETA, the Washington, DC, PBS station, WAMU, the American University NPR local affiliate in the D.C. area, and WNYC, a New York City NPR affiliate in the Big Apple.

“For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace,” Carr continued.

This is not the only inquiry the FCC has taken since Carr has led the telecommunications regulatory agency.

Keep reading

FCC Chair Brendan Carr Wants More Control Over Social Media

In his short time as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr has been no stranger to using his power against disfavored entities. The chairman’s targets have primarily included broadcast networks and social media companies.

Recently, Carr revealed a fundamental misunderstanding about one of the most important laws governing the internet and social media.

On February 27, digital news outlet Semafor held a summit in Washington, D.C., titled “Innovating to Restore Trust in News,” which culminated in a conversation between Semafor editor-in-chief Ben Smith and Carr.

“The social media companies got more power over more speech than any institution in history” in recent years, Carr told Smith. “And I think they’re abusing that power. I think it’s appropriate for the FCC to say, let’s take another look at Section 230.”

Section 230 of the Communications Act effectively protects websites and platforms from civil liability for content posted by others. It also protects a platform’s decision to moderate content it finds “objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Like many conservatives, Carr looks askance at social media’s latitude to moderate content with what he perceives as impunity. “The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute” and “remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate,” he wrote in a chapter of The Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership, more popularly known as Project 2025.

Keep reading

FCC Considers Revoking CBS License Over Kamala Harris’ ’60 Minutes’ Interview Controversy

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reportedly considering revoking CBS’s broadcast license after the network aired a controversial interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris on “60 Minutes.” The interview sparked widespread outrage and calls for accountability after the network aired a misleading version, including highly distorted answers from Harris’ responses. According to a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump, CBS violated state law by demonstrating deceptive acts in business conduct and “doctored” a “word salad” response from the failed Democrat presidential candidate about the Biden administration’s involvement in the Israel-Hamas war. The FCC’s review stems from concerns that the interview may have violated broadcasting standards, prompting scrutiny over whether CBS acted in the public interest. 

In the past two weeks, FCC Chair Brendan Carr launched investigations into three news outlets and reinstated complaints against three others, including NBC and ABC. The complaint against ABC received a “news distortion” complaint over its fact-checking by the moderators in the presidential debate between Harris and Trump that heavily favored Harris. Meanwhile, the complaint against NBC claimed that Harris’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live,” which aired just weeks before the election, violated “equal time” rules governing political programming.

Former FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, dismissed any probe into the interview, saying the complaints “seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment.”

However, Carr said he doesn’t “see how the FCC can reasonably adjudicate this claim of news distortion without seeing what was actually said.” 

Keep reading