Tag: fcc

Disney Begs FCC to Label Far-Left Propaganda Show ‘The View’ as “Bona Fide News” So They Can Handpick Democrat Candidates and Silence Republicans – FCC Chairman Brendan Carr Asks the American People to Weigh In

Disney-owned ABC is now petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to officially declare the screeching harpies on The View as “bona fide news,” giving the daytime talk show a free pass to platform Democrat politicians while blackballing Republicans and dodging equal time rules that apply to every other broadcaster.

This is the same network that spent years pushing nonstop Trump Derangement Syndrome, COVID hysteria, and every woke agenda item under the sun, and now they want the government to rubber-stamp their partisan operation as legitimate “news” journalism? Give us a break.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, one of the few adults left in Washington fighting back against Big Tech and Big Media gatekeepers, just exposed the whole scheme in a blistering public statement that perfectly captures the hypocrisy:

Disney has filed a petition with the FCC asking the agency to declare that The View is exempt from the statutory equal opportunities requirements that would otherwise apply to broadcast shows.

Disney argues that The View qualifies as “bona fide news” under the law, comparing itself to Meet The Press or Face The Nation.

Therefore, Disney argues, it can have one partisan candidate for office on The View while denying equal opportunities to all others.

The FCC is now seeking public comment on Disney’s request to be labeled as “bona fide news.”

Is The View a “bona fide news interview program”?

Under FCC case law, tv shows do not qualify as “bona fide news” if their decisions are based on partisan purposes, such as an intention to advance or harm an individual’s candidacy.

As the Public Notice observes, Congress originally passed the equal opportunities law to prevent media gatekeepers from deciding the outcome of elections. The law, even when it applies, does not prohibit anyone from having any candidate appear on any show. Rather, Congress intended it to empower voters with more information and encourage more speech.

Keep reading

The FCC Wants Your ID Before You Get a Phone Number

The era of the anonymous phone number could be ending. On April 30, the Federal Communications Commission unanimously approved a proposal requiring telecom providers to verify customers’ identities before activating service.

Government-issued ID, physical address, legal name, and existing phone numbers would all be included. The stated goal is stopping robocalls. The result would be an identity-verification regime covering one of the last semi-anonymous communication tools available to ordinary Americans.

The proposal applies to nearly every voice provider in the country, from traditional carriers and mobile operators to VoIP services. The FCC is seeking public comment on specifics, but the direction is clear.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr framed it around negligent carriers. “As we have continued to investigate the problem of illegal robocalls over the last year, it has become clear that some originating providers are not doing enough to vet their customers, allowing bad actors to infiltrate our U.S. phone networks,” he said. Some providers, he added, “do the bare minimum (or worse) and have become complicit in illegal robocalling schemes.”

That language targets telecom companies and the surveillance targets everyone else.

The framework borrows from banking’s anti-money-laundering rules. The FCC is also asking whether carriers should retain identity documentation for at least four years after a customer leaves and whether they should check customers against law enforcement watchlists. Penalties would shift to a per-call basis, meaning fines of $1,000 to $15,000 for every illegal call a poorly verified customer places.

The real privacy stakes sit in the proposal’s section on prepaid service. Right now, you can pay cash for a prepaid phone and SIM card without showing identification. Journalists use prepaid phones to protect sources, domestic violence survivors use them to avoid being traced, and whistleblowers, activists, or anyone with a reason to separate phone activity from legal identity relies on this.

Keep reading

FCC Launches UNPRECEDENTED REVIEW OF ABC Stations After Kimmel’s “Expectant Widow” Jab

The federal government is cracking down on ABC’s broadcast licenses in direct response to Jimmy Kimmel’s latest vile comments, this time on First Lady Melania Trump. 

The FCC, under Trump appointee Brendan Carr, is directing eight Disney-owned TV stations to file early license renewals tied explicitly to Kimmel’s “expectant widow” monologue that he may have gotten away with had an assassination attempt against Trump not occurred on the same day.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung was forthright In a post on X, declaring “Jimmy Kimmel is a shit human being for: Making a disgusting joke about assassinating the President. Doubling down on that joke instead of doing the decent thing by apologizing. ABC needs to fire him immediately and he should be shunned for the rest of his life.”

The controversy erupted after Kimmel, during a skit on his show last Thursday portraying himself as master of ceremonies for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, told Melania Trump: “Mrs Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.”

Keep reading

FCC Bans Nearly All Wireless Routers Sold in the U.S.

This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively banned the sale of nearly all wireless routers in the U.S., in yet another example of the government making Americans’ consumer decisions for them.

Ninety-six percent of American adults use the internet, and 80 percent of them use wireless routers—devices that transmit a signal throughout your home via radio waves and allow you to get online without plugging into the wall.

In a Monday announcement, the FCC deemed “all consumer-grade routers produced in foreign countries” potentially unsafe. This followed a national security determination last week, in which members of executive branch agencies concluded that “routers produced in a foreign country, regardless of the nationality of the producer, pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of U.S. persons.”

The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 empowered the government “to prevent communications equipment or services that pose a national security risk from entering U.S. networks.” The law directed the FCC to “publish and maintain a list of such equipment or services,” and according to that agency, inclusion on the list “will prevent the marketing, sale, or operation of any such new ‘covered’ equipment within the United States.”

Since wireless routers transmit over radio frequencies, they must be authorized by the FCC to be sold in the U.S.; adding all new foreign-made routers to the “Covered List” means the FCC will not authorize those devices’ transmitters, effectively banning their sale or use.

The announcement specifies that this only applies to new consumer-grade devices and “does not prohibit the import, sale, or use of any existing device models the FCC previously authorized.” It also notes that manufacturers who apply for exemptions on new models can be “granted ‘Conditional Approval’ after finding that such device or devices do not pose such unacceptable risks.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ban will likely make it more difficult for Americans to get wireless routers.

The problem is that banning all foreign-made routers means banning practically all routers. Most manufacturers, including the three largest, make their products overseas.

Keep reading

Stephen Colbert Hates Black Women and Other Universal Truths

As someone who loves comedy, what a*s-clowns like Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert havedone to the concept is like what Harvey Weinstein did to movie production or what Democrats have done to journalism, if journalism were their cellmate in Super-Max. Colbert is the Jeffrey Epstein of truth and Kimmel is the Luigi Mangione of honesty. That’s why it was not shocking to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size that Colbert would go on his show and lie, doing his best to help a white guy, James Talarico, beat a black woman, Jasmine Crockett, in the Democratic primary in the Texas Senate race.

First, I have to tell you about the concept of equal time. It is surprising how many “journalists” out there either do not have the mental capacity to understand this very basic concept, or simply are willing to come off as morons for the cause of their party. It’s about half and half, as I think you’d be stunned by just how many of these people have the intelligence of someone who snacked on lead paint chips.

But the concept of equal time is pretty basic: If you are going to have a candidate for office on a show that uses the public airwaves (broadcast tv and radio, not cable or streaming), other legitimate candidates (those who are on the ballot officially) can request an appearance for the same amount of time. This only applies to real candidates, not write-ins, and ONLY for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. The rest of the time, it is a free-for-all and shows can have on whoever they want.

One thing I’ve heard morons in the media claim is that the FCC is monitoring broadcasts or warning networks of the equal time obligations, but that is a lie. The FCC does not monitor any broadcasts, they respond to reports filed by viewers/listeners and anyone else, either for violation of decency rules or equal time. An audience member can’t make a claim for equal time on behalf of someone else; the candidate or politician must. The FCC decides if a claim is valid, period.

This is not rocket science, not even close, which means the people deliberately saying otherwise are lying or don’t have the mental capacity to understand this very basic concept.

Keep reading

“More Trust in Gas Station Sushi!” — FCC Chair Brendan Carr BLASTS Legacy Media, Colbert, and Dem Hopeful Talarico for FALSELY Claiming Trump’s FCC BLOCKED TV Interview Over Fears Talarico Could Flip Texas

FCC Chair Brendan Carr absolutely eviscerated the fake news peddlers who swallowed hook, line, and sinker a blatant hoax cooked up by late-night comedian Stephen Colbert and far-left Democrat Senate hopeful James Talarico.

Texas Democrat James Talarico apparently teamed up with late-night leftist Stephen Colbert to push a massive, embarrassing HOAX.

The ridiculous claim? That Donald Trump’s FCC supposedly “blocked” a TV interview because they were utterly “worried” Talarico might actually flip the deep-red state of Texas.

In January, The Gateway Pundit reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a crackdown on partisan talk shows in both daytime and late-night in an effort to provide equal treatment for political candidates.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said at the time, “For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late night & daytime talk shows qualify as “bona fide news” programs – even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes.”

“Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities.”

As a result of the rules, CBS chose not to air an interview between Late Night host Stephen Colbert and Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico on the network.

The interview was instead moved to YouTube, and Colbert was not pleased.

In an effort to look like a free speech warrior, Colbert mentioned Talarico during the show and released a false statement:

Colbert: You know who is not one of my guests tonight? That’s Texas State Representative James Talarico. He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers—who called us directly—that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention not having him on.

And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk—let’s talk about this. This doesn’t just affect interviews. The rules forbid any candidate appearance, including by voice or picture. That’s right. I am absolutely not allowed to show a photo of Texas State Representative James Talarico.

Because that’s not him—that’s a stock photo we found when we Googled “not James Talarico.”

It was a couple of weeks ago, on Carr’s Orders, the SEC opened an investigation into ABC’s The View after their James Talarico interview. That is absolutely shocking. James Talarico did The View before my show?

So I cannot show you any form of James Talarico. I can’t interview James Talarico. I can’t show any pictures of James Talarico.

I’m not even sure I can say the words “James Talarico.” But what I can show you is what we always show when we have to pull material at the last minute: this tasteful nude of Brendan Carr.

Talarico also posted a clip of the segment, further spreading the lie.

“This is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see. His FCC refused to air my interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump is worried we’re about to flip Texas,” Talarico wrote on X that was viewed 12 million times.

Keep reading

FCC Probes ‘The View’ Following Interview with Texas Democrat James Talarico

In January, The Gateway Pundit reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a crackdown on partisan talk shows in both daytime and late-night in an effort to provide equal treatment for political candidates.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said at the time, “For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late night & daytime talk shows qualify as “bona fide news” programs – even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes.”

“Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities.”

With the new oversight in mind, Fox News reports that the FCC is launching an investigation into ABC’s “The View” following an appearance by Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, the first political candidate to appear on the program following the announcement in January.

Talarico is facing other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), in the Democrat primary. Republicans Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), state Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) are facing off in the GOP primary.

Crockett also appeared on the show, but her appearance came before the FCC’s announcement.

Keep reading

‘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