FCC & Policy Briefing
Thursday, October 8, 2026
1. FCC schedules major satellite spectrum and direct-to-device decisions for October 29
The FCC announced yesterday that its October 29 Open Meeting will consider advancing a new spectrum auction and modernizing regulations for satellite-to-cellphone communications. The agenda includes proposals involving approximately 25 MHz of auctionable spectrum and additional spectrum for satellite services. The Commission will also consider final rules permitting certain drone operations in the 800 MHz cellular band.
Why it matters: These developments could significantly expand satellite/mobile spectrum sharing and influence future interference-protection and frequency-coordination policies. They do not presently change AM/FM/TV allocation requirements.
Action: October 29 Commission meeting. Review the resulting orders and proposed rules for spectrum-sharing provisions relevant to broadcast engineering.
2. FCC considers allowing AI-generated political robocalls without prior consent
The FCC is reviewing a petition from Club for Growth seeking permission to place political calls to wireless telephones using artificial, prerecorded or AI-generated voices without obtaining prior consent. Supporters argue that political communications deserve treatment comparable to certain exempt informational calls; opponents warn of unwanted calls and potential voter deception. The existing consent requirements remain in effect.
Why it matters: The proposal could substantially change political communications practices immediately before the November election. It also raises questions about artificial-voice authentication and consumer protections.
Action: Reply comments due October 19. No waiver has been granted; existing restrictions continue to apply.
3. Broadcasters seek voluntary software-based EAS equipment rules
The NAB, state broadcast associations and EAS equipment manufacturers have urged the FCC to authorize software-based EAS encoder/decoders without requiring replacement of functioning hardware. Their recent filings also oppose shortening the existing 60-day equipment repair-or-replacement period to 72 hours for software implementations. The Commission has not adopted these proposed changes.
Why it matters: Software-based EAS could eventually permit centralized alert processing, virtualized equipment and simpler cybersecurity updates. However, mandatory replacement or accelerated repair requirements could impose substantial costs on smaller broadcasters.
Action: No new compliance deadline. Continue using authorized EAS equipment and monitor the Commission's forthcoming modernization decision.
4. FCC proposes excluding Chinese laboratories from equipment certification
The FCC announced yesterday that it will vote October 29 on expanding restrictions against laboratories in China testing electronic equipment intended for the American market. The proposal would also restrict certification organizations in countries that do not provide reciprocal access to American testing facilities. If adopted, the new requirements are expected to take effect in December 2028.
Why it matters: Equipment certification is important to broadcast transmitters, wireless STL equipment and other regulated RF devices. Changes could affect manufacturers' certification procedures, product availability and equipment costs, although existing equipment authorizations would not automatically be invalidated.
Action: October 29 vote. No immediate equipment replacement is required.
5. Federal lawsuits challenge taxpayer-funded political television advertising
Two federal lawsuits filed this week challenge the Trump administration's use of approximately $20 million in Department of Homeland Security funding for television advertisements promoting administration policies and accomplishments. The Democratic National Committee and other plaintiffs allege that the advertising violates statutory restrictions on government-funded political publicity. The White House maintains that the advertisements are legitimate public-service communications, and no court has yet resolved the claims.
Why it matters: The litigation could establish important limits on using federal appropriations for government-sponsored television advertising that resembles political campaign messaging. The issue has direct relevance to broadcast advertising practices and the distinction between government informational advertising and partisan advocacy.
Action: No immediate station compliance change. Monitor the federal court proceedings and any injunction affecting continued government-funded advertising.
Label: FCC & U.S. Policy Briefing
