16 (Continued from Cover) cluding India, Australia, and France — all due to security concerns. Then, consider this. According to Curtis LeGeyt (pictured on the cover), president of the Washington, D.C.-based National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), “the FCC must modernize local ownership rules to help broadcasters compete with technology giants.” Speaking at the Media Institute’s Communications Luncheon in February 2025 at the Fairmont Hotel in Washington, D.C., LeGeyt urged the U.S. communications agency, the FCC, to eliminate the national television ownership cap and ease local radio and TV ownership restrictions. At the luncheon, NAB’s LeGeyt pointed out that “current FCC rules prevent TV broadcasters from owning two of the top four-rated broadcast stations in a media market.” This, according to LeGeyt, undermines broadcasters’ ability to compete with tech companies like Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon, which have no such limit. Therefore, he called for the FCC to remove its local TV and radio ownership rules, which, in his view, are “relics.” It appears that the top brass at the FCC heard what he had to say. During a May 5, 2025 Q & A presentation at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles, as part of the 28th annual Global Conference of the Santa Monica, California-based Milken Institute, a non-profit think tank organization, FCC chairman Brendan Carr said that he would like to get rid of ownership rules and caps, that in his view, are making it harder for local broadcast stations to compete with big tech and streamers. “We have these arcane, artificial limits on how many TV stations any one company can own. But of course, that doesn’t apply to big tech,” he added. Neither LeGeyt nor Carr replied to specific questions for this article. Still, the U.S. prohibits foreign nationals (known as “aliens” in the U.S. bureaucracy, like those coming from outer space) from owning more than 20 percent of a radio and TV broadcast station that uses the electromagnetic spectrum in their territory. Any foreign investor seeking to acquire a substantial stake in a U.S. broadcast station must be reviewed by various U.S. executive branch agencies to ensure that there are no perceived security risks raised by the proposed acquisition. Nevertheless, the FCC has shown that, in the right circumstances, foreign ownership of U.S. broadcast stations is permissible. But acquiring broadcast TV stations in the top U.S. markets is very expensive, and while mid-size markets are more affordable, many banks no longer lend money for linear TV outlets. However, foreigners can lease airtime on any U.S. broadcast TV station, therefore they can circumvent any TV ownership restrictions by possibly permanently leasing all the station’s airtime (the station licensor would post the usual, “the station is not responsible for the content...”), and the “must carry” rule will assure cable TV carriage throughout the station’s coverage area. For extended areas, the foreign airtime leaser can make arrangements with individual cable operators. This airtime leasing option has, for years, been used by foreign broadcast networks, like Italy’s RAI did on WNJU-TV, in New Jersey, also reaching New York City. Foreign networks, including CCTV-4 (China), Nippon TV (Japan), BBC-America (U.K.), TV5 Monde (France), and even RTVI (Russia), that run their own cable-satellite TV networks in the U.S., don’t need FCC approval, but only an agreement with local cable operators. In June 2024, the FCC approved new rules that require stations to secure documentation when leasing airtime, proving that a programmer does not have foreign government connections. The then FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said that the new rules were meant to create a process to inform consumers whether what they heard or saw over the air had been provided by a foreign government. However, according to the NAB and the Multicultural Media Telecom & Internet Council (MMTC), the new rules were burdensome and questioned whether the FCC had the authority to adopt the requirements. Carr, then an FCC commissioner, commented that the revision gave a new definition of what constitutes a lease. The FCC viewed a lease as “any agreement, written or not, where a licensee grants to another party the right to program on its station in exchange for some form of consideration.” But Carr then noted, “It creates new problems that may require us to revisit our foreign sponsorship rules in a future proceeding following another appeal.” In 2021, when the lease issue was reviewed, NAB, MMTC, and the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters jointly noted that the FCC decision failed to address the problems with undisclosed foreign governmental programming on cable systems and the Internet. The difference between “buying” and “leasing” airtime is explained thusly: Buying airtime grants (rents) clients a specific block of time to run their programming, infomercials, or commercials, while leasing airtime grants clients broader control, essentially allowing clients to operate the entire station for a longer period and having more control over its operation. Steve Schiffman, an entertainment lawyer based in Las Vegas (as well as a VideoAge contributor and in-house counsel), explained the nuances: “Since leasing airtime is not the same thing as being the licensee of a television station, there is no restriction on ‘advertising’ except for political advertising. The legal precedence for this goes back to the early 1950s when television sponsors ‘owned’ a program and the airtime on a television station or network. It is important to note that the licensee is still legally responsible for the contents of what is being aired; that any violation of possible civil or criminal FCC chairman Brendan Carr (r.) at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference “We have these arcane, artificial limits on how many TV stations any one company can own. But of course, that doesn’t apply to big tech.” — Brendan Carr (Continued on Page 19) VIDEOAGE June 2025 U.S. Media Ownership
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI4OTA5