1. FCC finalizes elimination of the 39% national television ownership cap
The FCC has released the final text of its order eliminating the 39% national television audience-reach cap. Transactions exceeding the former limit will instead receive case-by-case public-interest review, considering factors such as local programming, innovation, retransmission-consent costs and employment; Commissioner Gomez dissented, arguing that Congress—not the FCC—set the 39% limit. Broadcast Law Blog
Why it matters: This is a major structural change in television ownership policy and substantially increases the potential scale of future station-group transactions. The Commission's legal authority to abolish the congressionally established limit is likely to be challenged.
Action: No station filing required. For TV ownership/transfer work, use the new case-by-case framework and watch for court challenges and the Federal Register effective date.
2. Political-advertising LUC proceeding gets another comment round
The Media Bureau has opened another comment period concerning its March guidance that lowest-unit-charge treatment applies to certain candidate-authorized advertising purchased by political parties and joint fundraising committees. The current policy remains operative; the Commission has not yet rescinded or modified it. Broadcast Law Blog
Why it matters: This lands squarely in the general-election political window and affects station pricing decisions now. The additional proceeding also makes a policy reversal before the November election increasingly unlikely.
Action: Comments due October 12; replies October 19. Stations should continue applying the existing Media Bureau LUC guidance unless the Commission or a court changes it.
3. Upper C-band transition could affect broadcast satellite receive sites
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is seeking comment on its Upper C-band Transition Preliminary Cost Catalog. Incumbent earth stations displaced or modified as the 3.7–4.2 GHz band is further cleared for terrestrial wireless service may qualify for reimbursement, and the FCC is considering whether the procedures used in the earlier lower-C-band transition should largely be reused. Broadcast Law Blog
Why it matters: Broadcasters still using licensed C-band receive facilities for network or syndicated programming should not treat this as merely a wireless proceeding. Equipment replacement, retuning, filtering and other transition expenses can become reimbursable engineering costs.
Action: Comments due October 20; replies November 9. For affected clients, verify earth-station licensing and existing equipment before the transition process advances.
4. October broadcast compliance calendar — Q3 public-file and EAS filings approaching
Full-power radio and television stations and Class A TV stations must upload their third-quarter Issues/Programs Lists by October 13 (the normal October 10 date falls on a weekend). Separately, EAS participants must submit their 2026 ETRS Form One by October 30 ahead of the November 17 nationwide EAS test. Michigan Media
Why it matters: Issues/Programs Lists remain a frequent source of public-file violations, while the ETRS filing should also prompt an engineering check of EAS monitoring assignments, firmware, CAP connectivity and equipment clocks.
Action: October 13 — Q3 Issues/Programs List. October 30 — ETRS Form One. November 17 at 2:20 p.m. ET — nationwide EAS test.
5. Supreme Court opens new term today with major federal-state power cases
The Supreme Court of the United States begins its new term today with a docket involving immigration, voting, firearms and executive authority. Today's opening argument involves whether state-law climate-damage suits against oil companies are displaced by federal law; nearly 60 similar cases could be affected, making the case an important test of the boundary between federal and state regulatory authority. Reuters
Why it matters: Several cases this term could materially redefine the respective powers of the federal government, states and the executive branch rather than simply resolve individual disputes. Today's climate case is the first significant example.
Action: No immediate compliance action. A decision in the climate case is expected by June 2027; the Court's forthcoming immigration and voting cases warrant particular attention as the term develops.