How America’s Communications Watchdog Has Shaped the Media

Last updated 4 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Editor’s note: This article discusses hypothetical vaccine guidance for the 2025-2026 season. Some events described have occurred (RFK Jr.’s appointment, ACIP dismissals, Monarez firing), but specific vaccine policies, medical organization responses, and public health outcomes described for fall 2025 forward are speculative scenarios, not confirmed events.

For a century, the Federal Communications Commission has wrestled with technology that outpaces the laws designed to govern it.

From the crackle of early radio to invisible 5G data streams, the FCC has balanced technological innovation, corporate ambition, public interest, and political power.

Understanding the FCC means understanding the ongoing, often contentious, process of deciding who gets to speak, how they can speak, and what rules govern the vast infrastructure of modern communication. It’s a tale of reactive lawmaking, powerful interests, and the constant tension between free markets and public oversight.

Before the FCC: Radio’s Wild West Era

The First Spark of Regulation

In the early 20th century, “radio” wasn’t a mass entertainment medium but a revolutionary point-to-point communication tool known as wireless telegraphy. Its primary users were maritime vessels, transoceanic services, and a growing community of amateur enthusiasts. In the United States, this new frontier was almost entirely unregulated.

The first federal attempt to impose order was the Wireless Ship Act of 1910, which mandated that most passenger ships carry radio equipment with qualified operators, but individual stations remained unlicensed.

The catalyst for comprehensive regulation was catastrophe. The sinking of the RMS Titanic on April 15, 1912, sent shockwaves across the globe and subsequent inquiries revealed a fatal breakdown in wireless communication that contributed to the immense loss of life. This tragedy created an undeniable political imperative for government action.

That same year, the United States ratified the 1906 International Radiotelegraph Convention. On August 13, 1912, President William Howard Taft signed the Radio Act of 1912. This was the nation’s first law requiring federal licenses for all radio stations and mandating that shipboard radios be monitored by trained operators.

The law was a direct reaction to a maritime disaster – safety legislation that had no idea of the broadcasting revolution about to unfold.

The Broadcasting Boom

The 1912 Act’s regulatory framework was rendered obsolete almost overnight. In the early 1920s, the concept of broadcasting – disseminating news and entertainment to a general audience – exploded in popularity. The Department of Commerce, tasked with implementing the 1912 Act, found itself managing a phenomenon the law had never envisioned.

Under Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, the department attempted to cope by adopting its first regulations for broadcasting on December 1, 1921. It set aside just two wavelengths for the entire country: 360 meters (833 kHz) for “entertainment” and 485 meters (619 kHz) for “market and weather reports.”

This solution was immediately overwhelmed. With only one frequency available for entertainment, stations in the same city were forced into clumsy timesharing agreements to avoid interfering with one another. As the number of stations swelled from a handful to more than 500 by the end of 1922, the airwaves became increasingly crowded.

The Commerce Department tried to adapt, adding a second “Class B” entertainment frequency in 1922 and expanding the broadcast band in 1923 and 1924, but it was always a step behind the explosive industry growth.

The System Breaks Down

Hoover knew his authority under the 1912 Act was tenuous and repeatedly asked Congress for stronger powers, to no avail. The breaking point came from the courts.

A series of legal challenges systematically dismantled the Commerce Department’s ability to regulate. In 1926, the Zenith Radio Corporation, frustrated with its assigned frequency, simply moved its Chicago station, WJAZ, to an unassigned channel in defiance of Hoover’s regulations. The government sued.

In a landmark ruling, Judge James H. Wilkerson sided with Zenith, declaring that the Radio Act of 1912 did not grant the Secretary of Commerce the authority to deny licenses, designate specific frequencies, or limit station power. The decision effectively stripped Hoover of all meaningful regulatory power.

The floodgates opened and scores of new stations went on the air, while existing stations “jumped” to more desirable frequencies and boosted their powers at will. The result was a period of escalating interference and signal overlap that observers at the time, and historians since, have famously labeled the “chaos of the air.”

The Debate Over Radio Regulation

The prevailing historical account describes this period of chaos as a market failure, with competing radio signals creating interference that required centralized government coordination to resolve. This interpretation provided the primary justification for the regulatory framework established in the 1927 Radio Act.

Alternative interpretations suggest the situation was more complex. Before the Zenith ruling, an orderly system based on common law principles and “first come, first served” property rights in frequencies was beginning to emerge, enforced by the Commerce Department.

According to this perspective, the push for the Radio Act of 1927 wasn’t merely a technical solution to interference but the result of a powerful coalition of political and business interests. Political actors, led by Hoover, sought greater discretionary control over the content and speakers on this powerful new medium.

They found willing allies in the major incumbent broadcasters, such as the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), which saw government regulation as a way to create barriers to entry and limit competition from smaller, noncommercial, and amateur stations. These commercial giants helped draft the “public interest” language of the 1927 Act, framing their desire for a stable, limited market as a benefit to the public.

This move took the airwaves off the market and created what has been called the “political spectrum” – a golden resource to be allocated not by competitive forces, but by a government agency.

This foundational moment reveals a pattern that would define American communications policy: technology outpaces the law, creating a crisis that forces a reactive legislative solution. The nature of that solution, however, is shaped not just by technical necessity but by the political and economic interests of the most powerful players at the table.

The Federal Radio Commission Era

A New Sheriff in Town

In response to the escalating on-air chaos and pressure from industry and government leaders, Congress passed the Radio Act of 1927, which President Calvin Coolidge signed into law on February 23, 1927. The legislation superseded the toothless 1912 Act and created a new, powerful independent agency: the Federal Radio Commission (FRC).

The FRC was composed of five commissioners, each appointed from one of five geographically designated zones across the country to ensure regional representation in its decision making.

The FRC was granted the explicit powers that the Department of Commerce had lacked. It had the authority to issue and deny broadcast licenses, assign specific frequencies, determine station power levels, and issue fines for noncompliance.

The original law envisioned the FRC as a temporary body, and it was given one year to reorganize the broadcast band and establish order, after which its powers were to revert to the Secretary of Commerce. However, the complexity of the task soon became apparent, and Congress repeatedly extended the FRC’s mandate until it was made permanent in 1930.

The ‘Public Interest’ Standard

The most enduring legacy of the Radio Act of 1927 was the introduction of a new legal standard to govern broadcasting: Licenses would be granted only if they served the “public interest, convenience, or necessity.”

This principle fundamentally redefined the relationship between broadcasters and the public. It established that the radio spectrum was a public resource, not private property to be owned outright. Broadcasters were granted the temporary and privileged use of a frequency, and in exchange, they had an obligation to serve the needs of their communities.

This “public interest” standard became the legal justification for nearly all subsequent broadcast regulation. The 1927 Act also contained the first seeds of federal content rules. It explicitly forbade the use of “obscene, indecent, or profane language” on the air. Furthermore, Section 18 of the act was a direct forerunner of the “equal time rule,” ordering stations to provide equal opportunities to opposing political candidates.

While the act included a provision (Section 29) prohibiting the FRC from engaging in censorship, the power to grant, deny, and – most important – renew licenses based on a station’s overall performance gave the commission significant indirect leverage over programming content.

This created an immediate and lasting tension between the government’s role as a regulator in the public interest and the First Amendment’s protections against censorship.

The Great Reallocation

The FRC’s first and most urgent task was to untangle the snarled mess of the AM radio band. The commission embarked on a painstaking, year-and-a-half-long process of reevaluating and reassigning every station in the country to a new, noninterfering dial position.

This monumental effort culminated on November 11, 1928, with the implementation of General Order 40.

This order established the fundamental architecture of the AM radio band that persists to this day. It classified stations into three categories based on their power and coverage area:

Local: Low-power stations intended to serve a single community.

Regional: More powerful stations designed to cover a wider geographic area.

Clear Channel: High-power stations given exclusive use of a frequency at night, allowing their signals to travel for hundreds of miles across vast, often rural, parts of the country.

This great reallocation successfully stabilized the airwaves, eliminated the worst of the interference, and created the predictable operating environment necessary for the radio industry to mature and thrive.

This technical solution had significant economic and cultural consequences. In determining who received the powerful clear channel licenses versus local assignments, the FRC’s process tended to favor established, well-capitalized commercial broadcasters who could afford better equipment and legal representation.

Many smaller, noncommercial, educational, and religious broadcasters were either denied license renewals or relegated to less desirable, lower-power frequencies. In effect, the FRC’s technical cleanup of the airwaves cemented the dominance of a commercial, network-driven model for American broadcasting, a structure that would define the media landscape for the next half-century.

Birth of the FCC

Consolidating Communications Power

The FRC brought order to radio, but by the early 1930s, the broader communications landscape remained fragmented. While the FRC managed radio, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) – an agency created to regulate railroads – oversaw interstate telephone and telegraph services.

Amid the sweeping reforms of the New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to centralize and streamline federal regulatory power. This led to the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, signed into law on June 19, 1934.

The Act’s most significant structural change was the creation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This new agency absorbed all the powers and responsibilities of the FRC, and it also took over jurisdiction for regulating interstate and international telephone and telegraph “common carriers” from the ICC.

For the first time, all forms of electronic communication in the United States were brought under the oversight of a single, independent federal agency.

The Blueprint for Modern Regulation

The 1934 Act was less a revolution in regulatory philosophy than a grand consolidation of existing laws. Its stated purpose was ambitious: “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States … a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

To achieve this, the Act was divided into several key sections, or “Titles,” that established the blueprint for communications regulation for the next 60 years:

Title I established the structure and general powers of the new seven-member commission (later reduced to five).

Title II laid out the regulations for common carriers, such as telephone and telegraph companies. This section drew heavily on existing law governing public utilities like railroads, treating these companies as content-neutral conduits that must provide service upon reasonable request and at just and reasonable rates.

Title III governed radio broadcasting. It largely copied and pasted the provisions of the Radio Act of 1927, carrying forward the foundational “public interest, convenience, or necessity” standard as the basis for licensing.

This legislative framework created a centralized regulatory agency with broad authority. The strength of this approach was the flexibility built into its core mandate. The term “public interest” was left undefined, allowing the FCC to adapt its rules to changing circumstances and new technologies without requiring new legislation for each innovation.

This flexibility also meant that the definition of “public interest” would vary with changes in regulatory philosophy, leading to cycles of regulation and deregulation reflecting the priorities of different commissioners and administrations.

Broadcasting vs Common Carriage

The 1934 Act cemented a crucial legal distinction that would have profound consequences for the future of communications. It created two fundamentally different regulatory paths:

Broadcasters (Title III): Radio and, later, television stations were treated as content creators and editors. They were considered “speakers” with First Amendment rights, but because they used the scarce public airwaves, they were subject to the flexible “public interest” standard, which allowed for regulation of their overall performance and certain types of content.

Common Carriers (Title II): Telephone and telegraph companies were treated as public utilities. Their primary obligation was to transmit messages for anyone who paid the tariff, without discrimination and without interfering with the content of those messages. They were the pipes, not the water flowing through them.

For most of the 20th century, this division was logical, as the technologies were distinct. But this bifurcated structure embedded a conflict that would erupt decades later with the rise of the internet.

The internet is a medium that blends both models – it is a platform for content and speech delivered over a common-carrier-like infrastructure. The question of whether Internet Service Providers should be regulated under the strict, content-neutral rules of Title II or the lighter-touch framework of Title I and Title III became a central regulatory challenge of the digital age, a direct and unforeseen consequence of the legal architecture laid down in 1934.

The Television Age

Planning a New Medium

As television emerged from its experimental phase after World War II, the FCC was determined to avoid repeating the chaotic rollout of radio. Faced with a surge in applications for television station licenses and growing concerns about signal interference, the Commission took a dramatic and preemptive step.

In 1948, it instituted a nationwide “freeze,” halting the processing of all new TV license applications.

Initially intended to last only a few months, the freeze stretched for four years until 1952. During this period, the FCC developed its Sixth Report and Order, a comprehensive master plan that allocated television channels to communities across the entire country.

This plan was designed to ensure orderly growth and minimize interference, but it had a powerful side effect: it cemented the market dominance of the stations and networks that had secured licenses before the freeze began. This action demonstrated a more proactive regulatory approach but also highlighted how the FCC’s technical decisions could profoundly shape the competitive landscape of a new medium.

The Fairness Doctrine

Building upon its “public interest” mandate, the FCC in 1949 formalized a policy that would define broadcast journalism for nearly four decades: the Fairness Doctrine.

This policy was not about giving equal time to political candidates (a separate rule), but about ensuring balanced coverage of important public issues. It had two core components: It required broadcasters to devote a reasonable amount of airtime to the discussion of controversial matters of public importance and it required them to provide an opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on those matters.

The legal and philosophical justification for this significant imposition on broadcasters’ editorial freedom was the “scarcity doctrine.” Unlike the print world, in which anyone could theoretically start a newspaper, the broadcast spectrum was a physically limited resource. The government, through the FCC, acted as a gatekeeper for this scarce public asset.

This rationale was famously and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1969 case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC. Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White argued that a broadcast licensee has no absolute First Amendment right to monopolize a frequency to the exclusion of others.

He declared, “It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.” The Red Lion decision affirmed that because broadcasters were granted a privileged and profitable monopoly over a public frequency, the government could constitutionally require them to act as public trustees in return.

Defining Decency on the Airwaves

The FCC’s authority to regulate “obscene, indecent, or profane” content, first established in the Radio Act of 1927, was put to its most significant test in the 1970s. The landmark case was FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), which arose after a New York radio station aired comedian George Carlin’s satirical monologue, “Filthy Words,” in the middle of a weekday afternoon.

The monologue famously listed and repeated seven words that one could “never say on television.”

The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, sided with the FCC. The Court drew a clear distinction between “obscene” material (which is not protected by the First Amendment) and “indecent” material (which has some First Amendment protection).

It ruled that due to the uniquely pervasive nature of broadcasting – it enters the home uninvited and is uniquely accessible to children – the FCC had the authority to regulate indecent content. The Court affirmed the FCC’s power to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

This decision established the legal foundation for the FCC’s “safe harbor” policy, which prohibits the broadcast of indecent and profane material between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Public Broadcasting Alternative

By the 1960s, a growing chorus of critics argued that the American commercial broadcasting system, driven by advertising revenue, was failing to meet its public interest obligations, particularly in the areas of education, culture, and in-depth public affairs programming.

The very existence of this debate was an implicit acknowledgment that the original hope of the 1934 Act – that commercial broadcasters would provide sufficient public service programming in exchange for free use of the airwaves – had not fully come to pass.

The solution was not to reform the commercial system, but to create a publicly funded alternative. Following the recommendations of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

This landmark legislation created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a private, nonprofit corporation tasked with funneling federal funds to noncommercial television and radio stations. The CPB, in turn, helped establish the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in 1969 and National Public Radio (NPR) in 1970, creating the national infrastructure for the public media system that exists today.

This act enshrined a dual media system in the United States: a dominant, commercially driven sector and a smaller, publicly supported sector designed to fill the programming gaps left by the market.

The Reagan Revolution

Deregulation Philosophy

The 1980s marked a seismic ideological shift in Washington, and the FCC was at its epicenter. The Reagan administration brought a new philosophy of government that viewed regulation not as a necessary tool to protect the public, but as an impediment to free markets and innovation.

This view was championed at the FCC by Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had worked on Reagan’s campaigns.

Fowler famously articulated this new philosophy by declaring that television was nothing more than “a toaster with pictures,” arguing it should be regulated like any other household appliance rather than as a special public trust.

This perspective represented a departure from the scarcity doctrine and the public trustee model that had guided the FCC for its 50-year history. The new approach held that the public interest could be better served through competitive market forces rather than government mandates.

End of the Fairness Doctrine

The most significant casualty of this deregulatory push was the Fairness Doctrine. In 1985, an FCC report under Chairman Fowler concluded that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated broadcasters’ First Amendment rights. The commission argued that two key changes had made the rule obsolete:

The End of Scarcity: The proliferation of media outlets, particularly the rise of cable television and an increasing number of radio stations, meant that the original rationale of spectrum scarcity was no longer valid. Viewers had access to a multitude of voices, making a government mandate for balanced viewpoints unnecessary.

A “Chilling Effect” on Speech: The FCC argued that the doctrine actively discouraged robust debate. Broadcasters, fearing complaints and regulatory action, might choose to avoid covering controversial issues altogether rather than bear the burden of finding and airing opposing viewpoints.

In a 4-0 vote on August 5, 1987, the FCC formally abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Congress attempted to overrule the commission by passing the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 to codify the doctrine into law, but President Reagan vetoed the bill, sealing the policy’s demise.

This decision marked a significant policy change, reflecting a shift from treating broadcasters as public trustees to regulating them as private businesses operating in a competitive marketplace of ideas.

Breaking Up Ma Bell

While the FCC was deregulating broadcast content, the U.S. Department of Justice was restructuring the telecommunications industry. In 1974, the DOJ filed a major antitrust lawsuit against American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), arguing that its control over local service, long-distance, and equipment manufacturing limited competition and innovation.

After years of litigation, the case was settled in 1982, with the final judgment taking effect on January 1, 1984. The landmark agreement, known as the Modification of Final Judgment, forced AT&T to divest its 22 local operating companies.

These were spun off into seven new, independent Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), colloquially known as the “Baby Bells.” AT&T was allowed to keep its long-distance service (AT&T Long Lines), its research arm (Bell Labs), and its manufacturing division (Western Electric).

The breakup was one of the most significant restructurings of a regulated industry in American history. It ended a century-old integrated monopoly and opened the long-distance telephone market to competition from companies like MCI and Sprint.

The FCC’s role shifted from regulating the rates of a single national monopoly to overseeing a newly competitive marketplace. The AT&T divestiture and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, though driven by different agencies, were two halves of the same deregulatory coin.

One introduced market competition to the structure of telecommunications, while the other removed content obligations from broadcasting, together setting the stage for the modern media landscape.

The Internet Revolution

The 1996 Telecommunications Act

By the mid-1990s, the communications world was on the cusp of another technological revolution with the rise of the commercial internet. The existing legal framework, the Communications Act of 1934, was seen as an antiquated relic of the telephone and radio era.

In response, Congress undertook the first major rewrite of communications law in 62 years, culminating in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed into law by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996.

The Act’s stated goal was ambitious and sweeping: to dismantle regulatory barriers and foster a new era of competition across the entire communications sector. The central idea was to “let anyone enter any communications business.”

The law was designed to break down the legal walls that had long separated local telephone companies, long-distance carriers, and cable television providers, with the expectation that these giants would begin competing fiercely on each other’s turf, leading to lower prices, better service, and accelerated innovation for consumers.

Massive Media Consolidation

Although the Act was intended to increase competition, its most enduring effect was a wave of corporate consolidation, particularly in the radio industry.

The Act’s most impactful provision was the complete elimination of the national ownership cap, which had previously limited a single entity to owning 40 radio stations nationwide. It also significantly relaxed the limits on how many stations one company could own in a single local market.

The result was a feeding frenzy. Large corporations began buying up hundreds of stations at a blistering pace. The most prominent example was Clear Channel Communications (which later rebranded as iHeartMedia), which grew from just 40 stations before the Act to more than 1,200 stations in the years that followed, controlling a massive share of the national radio audience.

Rather than creating more competitors, the Act’s deregulation enabled the creation of a few national behemoths that dominated the industry. This outcome demonstrated a critical lesson in regulatory policy: In a capital-intensive industry, removing ownership limits does not necessarily spawn new small competitors; it often empowers the largest existing players to absorb them.

Impact on Local Programming

This rapid consolidation had a profound and widely criticized impact on the character of American radio. As national conglomerates took over locally owned stations, they implemented cost-cutting measures that hollowed out local programming.

Local news teams, DJs, and program directors were often replaced with syndicated, satellite-fed content produced out of a central hub hundreds or thousands of miles away. This led to a homogenization of the airwaves, where a station in one city might sound identical to a station in another, and a marked decline in news and public affairs programming tailored to the specific needs of a community.

Critics argued that this trend ran directly counter to the FCC’s historical mission of promoting localism and a diversity of viewpoints. The number of distinct media owners plummeted, concentrating control of the public airwaves into fewer and fewer corporate hands.

The promise of the 1996 Act was a vibrant marketplace of competing voices; the reality, for many, was a less diverse, less local, and more corporatized media landscape. The Act took the market-based philosophy of the 1980s and codified it into law, setting the FCC’s agenda for the next quarter century as it managed the mergers and market dynamics this landmark legislation unleashed.

The Modern FCC

The Net Neutrality Wars

The defining regulatory battle for the FCC in the 21st century has been the fight over “net neutrality” – the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T must treat all data on the internet equally.

This means they should not block or slow down specific websites or applications, nor should they create paid “fast lanes” for content providers willing to pay a premium. The entire debate is a direct consequence of the legal framework established in 1934, forcing the FCC to decide how a modern technology like the internet fits into the old categories of “common carrier” or “information service.”

This has led to shifting policy approaches depending on which party controls the FCC:

2002: Under Republican Chairman Michael Powell, the FCC classified cable modem service as a lightly regulated “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act. This classification gave the FCC very limited authority to impose net neutrality rules.

2015: After years of court battles challenging its authority under Title I, the FCC under Democratic Chairman Tom Wheeler took a dramatic step. The Open Internet Order reclassified broadband internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II, the same “common carrier” designation used for telephone companies. This gave the FCC clear and robust legal authority to enforce strict net neutrality rules, including prohibitions on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

2017: Following a change in administration, the FCC under Republican Chairman Ajit Pai reversed course again. The “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” repealed the 2015 decision, moving broadband back to a Title I information service classification and eliminating the net neutrality rules. The justification was that heavy-handed regulation stifled ISP investment and innovation.

This back-and-forth shows how the FCC’s effort to apply an analog-era law to digital technology has led to an uncertain and shifting regulatory environment for the internet.

Managing 5G Spectrum

While net neutrality has dominated headlines, the FCC’s most economically significant function in the modern era is spectrum management. The explosion of mobile devices, from smartphones to the Internet of Things, has turned the radio spectrum into one of the world’s most valuable natural resources. The FCC’s role has shifted from primarily licensing broadcasters to overseeing high-stakes spectrum auctions.

Since Congress first granted the FCC auction authority in 1993, the agency has used competitive bidding to assign spectrum licenses to wireless carriers, raising billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury.

The most recent and critical task has been making sufficient spectrum available for the nationwide deployment of fifth-generation (5G) wireless technology. This has involved a multifaceted strategy to free up and auction spectrum across different frequency ranges:

High-band (millimeter wave): This offers massive capacity and ultra-fast speeds but has limited range. The FCC has auctioned large blocks of this spectrum in the 24 GHz, 28 GHz, and 37-47 GHz bands.

Mid-band: This is seen as the “sweet spot” for 5G, offering a balance of speed and coverage. The FCC has worked to clear and auction crucial mid-band spectrum, including the C-band (3.7-4.2 GHz).

Low-band: This provides a wide coverage area, essential for serving rural America.

This shift marks a significant change in the FCC’s primary function. While it still carries a ‘public interest’ mandate, the agency now also serves as an economic regulator, overseeing a multibillion-dollar resource that supports the mobile economy.

The Crackdown on Robocalls

On a more direct consumer level, the FCC’s top protection priority is the fight against the scourge of illegal robocalls and robotexts – consistently the No. 1 source of consumer complaints filed with the agency.

The Commission has deployed a multipronged strategy to combat this problem:

Caller ID Authentication: The FCC has mandated that voice service providers implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework. This technology digitally validates call-related information, allowing carriers to verify that a caller ID is legitimate and has not been illegally “spoofed” by a scammer.

Empowering Call Blocking: The agency has given phone companies the authority to block suspected illegal robocalls by default, before they ever reach a consumer’s phone, based on reasonable analytics.

Aggressive Enforcement: The FCC has pursued massive fines, often totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, against illegal robocall operations and has worked to shut down the gateway providers that serve as the on-ramps for fraudulent international call traffic.

This ongoing effort shows the modern FCC working to address harmful uses of communications technology, using its regulatory and enforcement powers to protect consumers from fraud and harassment in an increasingly complex and global digital environment.

Bridging the Digital Divide

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the stark reality of America’s digital divide – the gap between those with access to reliable, high-speed internet and those without. The FCC has made closing this gap a top priority, recognizing that broadband access is no longer a luxury but a necessity for education, health care, work, and civic participation.

The agency has implemented several major programs to expand broadband access:

Rural Digital Opportunity Fund: This is a $20.4 billion program to bring broadband to rural areas that lack access to high-speed internet.

Emergency Broadband Benefit: This pandemic-era program provided monthly internet discounts to eligible households, later replaced by the Affordable Connectivity Program.

E-Rate Program: This program provides discounts to schools and libraries for broadband access, recognizing that educational institutions serve as crucial internet access points for many communities.

These efforts reflect the FCC’s public interest mission, directing resources to ensure that communications infrastructure reaches all Americans, not only those in profitable markets.

The Ongoing Challenge

The FCC’s century-long journey from radio regulator to digital-age overseer illustrates the perpetual challenge of governing rapidly evolving technology with laws written for a different era.

The agency’s core tension remains the same: balancing free market competition with public interest obligations, protecting consumers while fostering innovation, and adapting analog-era legal frameworks to digital realities.

As new technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality and the Internet of Things reshape communications, the FCC faces the challenge of regulating innovations that often advance faster than the laws meant to govern them. The agency’s effectiveness will depend on its ability to draw lessons from past decisions, anticipate future developments and uphold its role as both economic regulator and public-interest guardian.

The story of the FCC is ultimately the story of how American democracy has managed the power of communications technology. It underscores that decisions about who can speak, and in what ways, are not purely technical matters but choices that influence the flow of information, the distribution of power and the nature of public discourse.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.