The Federal Communications Commission will vote next month on whether a single company can own broadcast stations that reach more than 39 percent of US TV households. 

In a Breitbart op-ed on Wednesday, Republican FCC Chair Brendan Carr announced an August 6th vote to end the national ownership cap rule, which was intended to prevent one company from dominating the media landscape and incentivize serving local communities. Carr argued the rise of social media and streaming platforms renders the rule obsolete, because national programmers can reach “100 percent of the country” without the need to access public airwaves. Under this reasoning, capping local broadcast TV owners at 39 percent “is preventing them from gaining the same scale that their competitors are free to enjoy.”

The FCC has already said it’s waiving the ownership cap on a one-time basis to allow a $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar and Tegna. A federal judge put the deal on hold while a challenge by state attorneys general plays out.

Carr’s opponents warn that repealing the rule could harm local journalism through reduced competition, and say that only Congress, which set the cap, has authority to raise or eliminate it. “The Commission cannot waive away that limit simply because these corporate behemoths want to get out from under it,” Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez said in a statement. Broadcasters are already free to make their own websites or cable news stations, just like everyone else, said Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at nonpartisan nonprofit Free Press. “The national cap is not a special disadvantage for broadcasters,” he said in a statement. “In fact, broadcasters have a special advantage with their exclusive licenses to use precious national airwaves the way they do.”

Carr only needs the support of Republican Commissioner Olivia Trusty to approve an agenda item. But even if the vote clears, it could still face a challenge over whether the FCC has the authority to get rid of the cap.

A dozen state attorneys general are trying to block the $110 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery they warn would raise movie prices and crush cable TV distributors.

The states — California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington — filed suit on Monday, arguing the combination would illegally harm competition and create a “media behemoth.” Last month, the Justice Department declined to block the merger in a decision that The Wall Street Journal reported surprised career staff who were leaning toward recommending a lawsuit. In an exit interview with Politico, former DOJ acting antitrust chief Omeed Assefi rejected the report as “not accurate.”

But according to the states’ lawsuit, the merger would result in a consolidation of two out of the five “major film distributors” and basic cable channel owners, meaning that, “for every dollar generated by wide-release theatrical films and basic cable channels in this country, the combined company will pocket more than a quarter.” In a press release, Paramount said the lawsuit was “based on a misrepresentation of competition in the entertainment industry today” and that delaying it would harm consumers and entertainment talent.

The merger has raised alarms both in Hollywood and in political circles, in part because it would put CNN under the control of David Ellison, son of close President Donald Trump ally Larry Ellison. Some former CBS journalists have warned of politically charged interference in programming after Ellison tapped The Free Press founder Bari Weiss to head the network, and ratings under Weiss have reportedly dipped. 

The lawsuit threatens to be costly for Paramount if it delays the deal from closing by September 30th. It’s committed to a 25 cent per share “ticking fee” to WBD shareholders for each quarter it’s delayed beyond that, about $650 million per quarter.

The New York State legislature passed a one-year moratorium on new large data centers, the first statewide ban of its kind if Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul signs it into law.

Lawmakers behind the bill say it’s meant to give policymakers time to understand the impact of large data centers on the environment and energy prices. It directs the state’s environmental agency to create an impact report assessing the amount of electricity, water, and land that data centers use, and the pollution they create. It also requires companies planning to build large data centers — defined as having a peak demand of at least 20 megawatts — to hold and fund a public hearing at least three months before it’s able to gain approval for the project. Hochul has not said whether she will sign the bill, and has until December to decide whether to sign or veto it, according to Bloomberg Government.

Surveys show that most Americans oppose the idea of data centers in their communities, and heated public meetings across the country have shown it to be a galvanizing issue across the political spectrum. Earlier this year, Maine’s legislature passed a bill that would have banned new data centers until late 2027, but Democratic Governor Janet Mills vetoed it because it failed to include an exemption to a previously planned project, according to The New York Times. The New York Independent System Operator, a nonpartisan entity tasked with maintaining electric grid reliability, has said it’s currently reviewing 24 data center proposals totaling over 9,000 megawatts, according to News10 ABC, and a proposed 180 megawatt project in Albany has drawn concerns from residents.

The New York bill is a shorter moratorium than the three-year proposal that was previously introduced, according to Politico. But even the one year pause has garnered pushback from industry groups. Stacey Sikes, acting president and CEO of business group the Long Island Association, told Politico the moratorium would “overall be damaging to the state’s economy, because having a blanket moratorium instead of looking at it at a case by case basis would not allow the state to move forward on a data center project that would actually be helpful to our economy.”

Hochul spokesperson Kristin Devoe told The Verge, “The Governor will review the bill.”

Update, June 5th: Added comment from Governor Hochul’s spokesperson.

In the face of widespread backlash to the AI data center buildout throughout the US, Google is touting its efforts to minimize the environmental impact by actually increasing water for local communities. 

The company laid out five commitments around water use in a new blog post published Wednesday, including a goal to replenish more water than it uses at its data centers by 2030. Google also said it will invest in local water infrastructure, identify alternative water sources to power its facilities, and be transparent about its water use overall. 

“We’re just one of dozens of players in the space,” Google’s global head of infrastructure and sustainability Ben Townsend told The Verge in an interview. “We think it’s really important to sort of put a blueprint out there that communities can reference, so if somebody else comes and says, ‘we’d like to build a data center there,’ a community can say, ‘well, here are five different things that really put the community and the watershed first. Are you doing these? Are you doing one of them? All of them? None of them? And if not, why?’”

The commitments come amid growing opposition to the rapid data center buildout helping to power the extensive energy needs of AI. Google parent company Alphabet recently said it wants to raise $80 billion from stock sales to fund its buildout for the technology. A recent Gallup poll found that more than 70 percent of Americans oppose the idea of a data center being built in their area. Half of the respondents cited data centers’ impact on environmental resources as a motivator behind their opposition, including 18 percent who cited excess water use as an issue.

AI data centers require vast amounts of water for cooling, with a recent study finding that the technology used as much water annually as people drink from water bottles worldwide. Google’s prior estimates of its own water use for AI have been misleading, according to some researchers, who say they omit indirect water usage. The widespread resource concerns have driven a wave of commitments across the industry to limit water usage and prevent data centers from driving up consumer energy prices. 

But Google’s Townsend defended the company’s record thus far. “To the best of our ability, we are accounting for the offsite water footprint,” Townsend said, “and I think we’ve made significant progress in reducing or eliminating the water footprint of that supply chain through our waterless renewable energy investments.”

In the blog post, Google’s vice president of global infrastructure Bikash Koley says water usage at data centers can lower overall energy use. “In many places, water cooling can reduce data center energy use by approximately 10% compared to air cooling,” Koley writes. “The aggregate water consumption of data centers is small — U.S. data centers use less than 1% of the water that Americans use on their lawns annually — but we are focused on protecting local water resources in all aspects of our data center operations.”

Koley says Google will be able to replenish more water than it consumes in the next four years by investing in projects that improve things like irrigation and infrastructure. It promises to keep reporting its annual water use and look for alternative sources like reclaimed wastewater, as it’s done in one Georgia county. The company also announced $17 million to support new water stewardship projects across seven states.

Those who worry about data centers sucking up all their water have valid concerns, Townsend said, though he says they might use less water than people think. “It would be a real disservice to the space to say there’s only misconceptions out there. That’s not true,” Townsend said. But, he added, the data center sector doesn’t use as much water as people might think, and now is the time to invest to make sure “that data center water use doesn’t become a problem.”