B (6:13)

Well, Ben, it's great to be with you. And you're asking the key question because one of the interesting things that the whole Jimmy Kimmel exercise showed was the willingness of the Trump administration, through FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, to exert their authority to coerce broadcasters to control what people hear by controlling what the broadcasters say. And what you saw in the Jimmy Kimmel exercise was one manifestation of it. But what's coming next is a further example. You know, you know, a, an autocrats favorite tool is a monopoly on telling the story. And if you can control the people who tell that story, then you've got an autocrat's greatest dream. And so what is now going on at the FCC is an effort to change the rules about who can own the right to use the public's airwaves to broadcast to Americans. Go back to the beginning of broadcasting, the 1934 Communications act, in which the founding principle was a diversity of voices and diversity of ownership, so that the debate that is so essential to democracy could take place over time. That has been whittled down to the point where only about 20% of America's local, quote, unquote broadcast outlets are truly locally owned. And what Chairman Carr announced on Tuesday of this week, the last day of September, was an initiative to change the rules to allow, number one, a handful of broadcasters to have a greater reach nationally, and number two, in that process to allow them to have greater control locally. So I'll give you a quick example. There is a merger that has already taken place, already been agreed to, between nexstar Media, which is the largest chain of broadcast outlets in the nation, and another chain by the name of Tenga, which is per se illegal today because it violates the FCC's rules in terms of both reach and local ownership. Yet the deal went through, or the deal has been agreed to and is only awaiting the FCC to change the rules to make it legal. And Brendan Carr has indicated an intention to do that. And how do you make it legal? Well, you cut back on the diversity of voices and you cut back on the diversity of ownership. And you give it to corporations that have self identified as being Trump friendly.

C (10:26)

It is a wild concept. I think for our audience to hear that back in the Communications act in the 1930s, about 90 years ago, that everything that this current call it a regime attacks is diversity. But right there in the 1934 Communication act, the main mission statement, diversity, diversity of voices, diversity of ownership. And that here we are in 2025 with this 90 years later, going to be 100 years later soon attacking diversity. So what can be done though with this ownership rule that's that's on the table now? That was would be unthinkable. You know, I think back when not unthinkable people would think about it, but unpassable when back in the day when you were the commissioner because diversity, when your mission statement is diversity of voices and diversity of ownership, there are certain things that are likely non starters. What can be done? How do we address it? How do you address it?

B (11:36)

Well, I'm addressing it by trying to make sure that there is an awareness of it. The process that has just begun at the FCC is a process called a notice to proposed rulemaking. And there will be a period of about 30 days in which the public can make comments on this fcc.gov and then there'll be another period of 30 days where they can do reply comments where they say well this guy was wrong for this reason or whatever. And then the rule will be passed by the commission probably on a party line vote. There are two Republicans and one Democrat sitting on the commission today. And so one would expect that that would happen and that will open an opportunity for lawsuits. Those who participated in the proceeding have filed comments, et cetera, can challenge it in court. And one would hope that something like that happens because there, you know, I don't want to get down into the weeds of communications law, but there's an interesting thing that the limit on the national reach was set by Congress and suddenly the FCC thinks it can change that. Now it's really interesting that the conservative Republicans for years have been saying, oh there's too much power in these independent agencies, you need to cut them back. And the Supreme Court, Robert, Supreme Court just did last year, cut back the authority of independent agencies. And so it will be fascinating to see what happens if there is a challenge to this effort to make an illegal acquisition legal and how the courts deal with that. And so we're so it is important to stand up and, and face this challenge.

C (13:54)

You know, our listeners and viewers who follow our legal analysis will remember the case that Tom is talking about there, the Chevron case, which used to be where you show deference to what these agencies are, unless they act arbitrary or capriciously or totally beyond the bounds of law, you would defer to the agency. With Chevron deverence being overruled, the federal courts now have a more robust authority to scrutinize what the agency is doing. So it will be interesting now in a post Chevron deference world that people like Brendan Carr and and other Project 2025 authors were pushing to now see a lawsuit where they don't have the benefit of a Chevron deference. But that's getting in a little bit of the weeds. But let's get out of the weeds. But just talk generally. I mean, you being a prior commissioner of the fcc, seeing this guy, Brendan Carr come in, like, did you know of this guy before? I mean, did you, did you see this, did you see this kind of coming? I mean, you know, where, where is this going? What's your views about what's happening right now? Kind of, kind of generally? Because look, to me, you know, it's very odd to see a cartoonishly villain figure kind of show up on, on Fox on an almost daily basis like this guy does and just say, this is just the beginning. We're coming after you next. I mean, it's, it's a little bit strange to see that at the fcc, which is supposed to promote diversity of viewpoints and diversity of ideas that have like a cartoon villain on tv.

B (15:36)

So I've known Brendan for years. He was a former staffer at the fcc. He was the former general counsel during the last administrator. No, it didn't work for me. He worked for one of the commit when I was chairman, he worked for one of the commissioners. And, and then when that commissioner became chairman, he made him general counsel and then Trump put him on the commission as a commissioner and then elevated him when, when he came in. He was the author, by the way, of the FCC chapter in Project 2025. And, and, and here's the, here's the fascinating thing about that. You say, you know, tell me about Brendan Carr. The first seven words in the FCC chapter in Project 2025, which Brendan Carr wrote, are the FCC should promote free speech. Really? That's what we just saw in Jimmy Kimmel. That's what we're seeing with the limitation of the diversity of voices. So, you know, I actually have respect for Brendan Carr. Brendan Carr has great intelligence. He's a really smart guy. He's a very articulate guy. He is a very strategic thinker. My problem is that he's putting those significant skills to work in efforts that are antithetical to the public interest. And therein lies another interesting point that he justifies what he's doing because another part of the statute says that the FCC should act in the, quote, public interest, convenience and necessity. And Chairman Carr has been saying, well, I'm going to define the public interest. And he defines the public interest as things that are an agreement with President Trump and his agenda. And I will enforce the public interest. This broad term where I determine that this disagreement with Trump is not in the public interest is an interesting thing thing, Ben, that early in his tenure he said, you know, we should probably have a rulemaking at the FCC that defines public interest. And I was taking bets then, and I will continue to take bets that we will never see anything like that because it is impossible if for somebody to sit down and relate the First Amendment to the MAGA agenda and that any effort that Chairman Carr would do to do that is, is a mission impossible and, and will never happen. But the problem is that right now, this fuzzy term, the public interest, which we all want to support, is being interpreted in a quite unfuzzy way to mean things that agree with Donald Trump. Right.

C (19:16)

And how do you, if you're going to do a definition of public interest in the context of the fcc, how do you untether that from the idea of diversity of voices and ownership? That kind of underlines one of the main. And the enabling statute to begin with. So. But before we go, I want to speak to you about what you want to see. Obviously these are not, these are dark times for most Americans right now in the pocketbook. You know, also again, as it relates to FCC people wondering, you know, the people who I watch on tv, are they going to be canceled because they tell a bad joke about Donald Trump? I mean is, is humor and comedy know the same way lots of right wing people wanted to try to fear monger back in the day. Like now you actually have an FCC commissioner, like actually actual canceling of, of comedians. Like what, what, what do you want to see happen generally right now? Or you know, we have 6 million subscribers right here, you know, who don't just want to watch like they would watch a cable news network and go, okay, let's see this person. Like they want to know what, what should they be thinking? So as, as you're out and about, like what do you want them to take away right now we know the bad. What is there hope? What can we do?

B (20:37)

Well, there has to be hope. Ben, you always, you know, you can't get up in the morning if there's not hope. But you know, I, what I hope people take away is, you know, the FCC used to be the largest unknown agency in Washington, you know, who could go around and name the FCC chairman. And I was FCC chairman and I, you know, and, and, but boy, everybody could sure name Brendan Carr right now. So the fact that there is an awareness of the power of the fcc, the fact that there is an awareness of the power of one individual to carry out the instructions of President Trump using the powers of the FCC is something that we all need to be aware of. And as I said before, we need to be making sure that our voices are heard through the channels of the FCC, such as FCC.gov and filing comments and being ready to stand up for things that we don't agree with. But there is an awareness. Action begins with awareness. And I'm just grateful for the fact that there is now some awareness because of this ham handed handling of the whole Jimmy Kimmel exercise.

C (22:01)

I think it's really such an incredible point because we, the people never actually, we took for granted that there were people, there were people like you behind the scenes who were just quietly doing their job and who weren't out there every day say, hey, look at me everybody, look what I'm doing and look what I'm doing, look what I'm inflicting upon you. You know, you just go about the work. And I think we all now realize that we have to be active participants in this. We the people can't be idle and hope that there are people like you. Tom. We need to have active roles in understanding what's actually happening in the government and who these people are. And that people in agencies that may not be, you know, be always front and center wield huge amounts of power over our, over our day to day life. So I really appreciate it, I really appreciate you coming on. Anything else you want. You're so smart. Anything else you want to say before we go?

B (23:04)

Look, you're spot on and you know, I'm just grateful that you're creating a platform where these kinds of thoughts and ideas can be expressed and they're no longer trees falling in the forest.

C (23:22)

Tom Wheeler everybody. Federal Communications Commissioner back in the Obama administration, the chairman. Thanks for joining us, Tom.

B (23:30)

Thank you, Ben.

C (23:31)

Everybody hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million subscribers. Thanks for watching. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our substack@midasplus.com you'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski ad free episodes, episodes of our podcast and more exclusive content only available@midasplus.com.

B (23:51)

Morning Zoe. Got donuts.

A (23:53)

Jeff Bridges why are you still living above our garage?

B (23:56)

Well, I dig the mattress and I want to be in a T Mobile commercial like you teach me.

A (24:02)

So Dana oh no, I'm not really prepared.

B (24:06)

I couldn't possibly at t mobile get.

A (24:08)

The new iPhone 17 Pro on them. It's designed to be the most powerful iPhone yet and has the ultimate pro camera system.

B (24:15)

Wow. Impressive. Let me try. T Mobile is the best place to get iPhone 17 Pro because they've got the best network. Nice.

A (24:23)

Jeffrey, you heard them.

B (24:24)

T Mobile is the best place to get the new iPhone 17 Pro on us with eligible traded in any condition. So what are we having for launch?

A (24:33)

Dude, my work here is done.

C (24:35)

The 24 month adventure credit is on experience beyond for well qualified customers plus tax and $35 device connection charge credits ended balance due to payout earlier Cancel Finance agreement. IPhone 17 Pro 256 gigs $1099.99 and new line minimum $100 plus a month plan with auto PayPal taxes and fees required. Best mobile network in the US based on analysis by Oaklove Speed Test Intelligence data 1H 2025 visit t mobile.com.