Dangers Of FCC Approving A ABC, CBS, NBC, & Fox Merger

Imagine turning on your TV and realizing every channel features the same anchor, the same jokes, and the same commercials for an insurance company that somehow owns half the media landscape. Sounds dystopian? Maybe. But that’s the world we might be inching toward if the FCC ever decides to toss out the long-standing rules that prevent the four major broadcast networks—ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox—from merging, and the related rule that prevents any single company from owning more than two broadcast networks in a local market.

Before you grab your popcorn (or your remote), let’s unpack what such a change could mean—for viewers, advertisers, and the smaller broadcasters just trying to keep their antennas above water.

The Current Rules in a Nutshell

In a move that could reshape the U.S. media landscape, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has recently announced plans to reconsider its longstanding prohibition on mergers among the four major broadcast networks — ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. The agency is also seeking public comment on whether to revise or eliminate other media-ownership rules, including caps on local station ownership and national reach limits.

Currently, the FCC has a few key guardrails to keep broadcast television from becoming a media monopoly. First, no merger among the “Big Four” broadcast networks. Second, one entity can’t own more than two broadcast networks in the same local market.

Any fundamental change to the current rules would mark one of the most transformative regulatory overhauls in the history of the broadcast industry. The stakes are high: under current rules, no single entity may own more than one of the “Big Four” networks, and ownership of multiple top-rated TV stations in the same local market is tightly constrained.

The rationale is simple: competition breeds diversity and diversity breeds more options for viewers. Simply put, these rules help ensure that viewers get different perspectives, advertisers have more negotiating power, and local broadcasters can still find a place in the lineup. Dropping these rules, however, could fundamentally reshape how television operates—and not necessarily for the better (unless you really love reruns of The Masked Singer on every channel).

What the FCC Is Proposing to Revisit

At its most recent open meeting, the FCC voted unanimously (3–0) to launch a broad review of key ownership rules. Among the proposals under consideration:

Lifting the ban on mergers among the Big Four networks.
The agency will solicit public comment on whether the prohibition still serves the public interest in today’s multimedia environment.

Revising local television ownership rules.
Specifically, the FCC will review whether the prohibition on owning two “top-four” stations in a market should be eliminated or modified.

Modifying national reach caps and related rules.
The Commission is reconsidering how national ownership calculations are made, including treatment of UHF discounts and other exemptions.

Reassessing radio ownership restrictions.
Although the focus is mostly on television, the review also extends to local radio station ownership limits.

What Viewers Might Experience if the Current Rules Change: The Great Homogenization

While it’s highly unlikely that our broadcast options in the United States would ever be homogenized into one consolidated “State Television” (of the old Soviet Union model), the combination of even two of the big four broadcast networks could have a chilling effect on the diversity of viewing options that we have grown accustomed to as Americans.

Let’s start with the people sitting on the couch—us. In theory, network consolidation might mean better resources, streamlined programming, and fewer redundant reality shows. In practice? It could turn your TV guide into a copy-and-paste exercise.

If the one or more of the major networks were allowed to merge with one another, you could see:

• Less diversity of content: Why produce four competing newscasts when one centralized “super-news” division can crank out a single broadcast for everyone
• Uniform programming: The quirky regional flavor of certain affiliates might vanish, replaced with nationwide “safe” programming designed to offend no one and excite even fewer.
• Higher costs for access: While broadcast channels remain free over the air, streaming platforms owned by those same networks could start bundling content, forcing viewers to pay for what used to be public.

Basically, in the worst-case scenario, you could end up watching a single, corporate-approved version of The Voice, Survivor, and Law & Order—all airing under one megabrand, perhaps called “NBABCFOXBS.” (Try fitting that on a mug).

Highly unlikely? Yes. However as recently as 2018, an FCC media ownership review reaffirmed its longstanding prohibition on any consolidation of the big four networks, concluding that it advanced the agency’s core goals of competition and localism.

Therefore, the FCC’s more recent decision to review its longstanding policies on ownership rules opens the door to major broadcast network consolidation at a scale that was once considered unthinkable.

Potential Impact on Advertisers: From Negotiation to Capitulation

Advertisers might at first think consolidation is a dream—fewer networks to negotiate with, broader audiences, and maybe even “bulk discounts.” But in reality, the tables could turn quickly.

Currently, networks compete aggressively for ad dollars. If one hikes rates or fails to deliver, advertisers can shift budgets elsewhere. But in a post-merger world, the balance of power would tilt dramatically toward the networks.

Think of it like going grocery shopping in a town with one supermarket. Sure, it’s convenient—but when they decide avocados are now $9 apiece, where else are you going to go?

Advertisers could face:

• Higher rates: Less competition means the networks can charge more for airtime.
• Less flexibility: With fewer unique audiences and shows, advertisers lose the ability to target specific demographics effectively.
• Brand dilution: If every ad slot surrounds the same shows with similar audiences, the unique positioning of a brand becomes harder to achieve.

In short, advertisers might end up nostalgic for the days when a fight between NBC and CBS could actually lower their costs.

Small Broadcasters: The Canaries in the Coal Mine

The local, independent broadcasters—those channels that give airtime to regional news, local sports, and that one inexplicable late-night fishing show—could face an existential crisis.

If the major networks merge or can own more outlets in a market, they’ll dominate the airwaves and advertising inventory. Independent stations could lose syndication deals, see their ad revenue dry up, and struggle to afford local journalism.

Moreover, the merged networks could control distribution pipelines. Want to air a syndicated sitcom or license old content? You might have to pay inflated rates to the new broadcasting behemoth—or simply get shut out altogether.

The result: fewer local perspectives, fewer jobs in smaller markets, and a broadcast landscape that feels more like fast food than home cooking.

Innovation vs. Imitation

One of the biggest hidden consequences would be the impact on innovation. Right now, networks compete to produce new formats and experiment with programming to capture audiences. A consolidated system would remove that incentive.

Smaller production companies could also suffer. Independent creators often rely on wide array of media distributors to pitch new ideas. Fewer broadcasters would have less need to take chances on outside producers developing new and innovative IP when they already own all means of distributions and libraries of historical content – the allure of countless remakes and sequels may be too tempting to resist.

A key test of this scenario may play out in the near future if David Ellison’s rumored interest in bidding for Warner Discovery proves to be true. Were Skydance Media to successfully consolidate the operations of Paramount Global and Warner Discovery, the result would be an unprecedented combination of legacy media brands, content libraries and distribution capabilities. The combination of those brands may also serve as a disincentive to take risks on new IP, given the legacy of the intellectual property library at its disposal. Why take a risk on the next Sinners, when the next installment of Mission: Impossible or Batman would prove a much safer bet?

The Ironic Twist: Technology Is Already Blurring the Lines

Here’s the plot twist: the traditional rationale for these FCC restrictions is eroding thanks to streaming. The Big Four already compete less with each other and more with Netflix, YouTube, and TikTok. The argument could be made that relaxing ownership rules would let broadcast networks better compete with tech giants.

But merging to fight off the streamers is like responding to a neighborhood coffee shop invasion by merging every fast-food restaurant into one mega-franchise. You might achieve scale, but you’d also erase what made each brand distinct.

Besides, audiences today crave choice, not consolidation. The success of niche streaming services—everything from horror-only channels to classic sitcom networks—suggests viewers value diversity more than ever.

The Bottom Line: Be Careful What You Merge For

If the FCC were to drop these ownership limits, it might seem like a harmless modernization—a way to help “legacy media” survive. But the downstream effects could be enormous: fewer voices, less competition, higher prices, and a more homogenized media landscape.

For viewers, it means less variety. For advertisers, less leverage. For small broadcasters, less survival.

And for the rest of us? A future where turning on the TV feels like walking into a corporate group chat.

So, let’s hope that before anyone hands over the keys to “Channelopoly,” the FCC remembers why these rules existed in the first place—to ensure that when you change the channel, you actually get a choice.