Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

The FCC has proposed amending its rules governing the Emergency Alert System (EAS) in order to test and improve the effectiveness of the system.  In particular, the Commission has proposed that all EAS participants be required to join in a nationwide test -- to be scheduled by the FCC in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) -- to ensure that the system will function properly to inform the public in the event of a national crisis.  The FCC proposes to implement the national test on a yearly basis and seeks comment on the specific language of the proposed rule.  A copy of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was recently published in the Federal Register establishing the deadline for Comments on the proposed rules as March 1, 2010, with Reply Comments due on or before March 30, 2010.

In issuing its NPRM, available here, the Commission acknowledged the shortcomings of the current rules and its belief that a national test -- and the data gathered from such a test -- is critical to ensuring consistency and reliability in a system that has actually never been used to deliver a national Presidential alert.  Under the current system, an EAS message is initiated, which is then passed via specially encoded messages to a broadcast-based transmission network, and then on to broadcast stations, cable operators, and other EAS participants in a daisy-chain distribution to the final end users, i.e., the public who is listening, watching, or reading, on radio, television, cable, or other services.  This daisy-chain structure leaves the system, in the Commission's estimation, vulnerable to a significant failure if the message distribution is severed or delayed at any one point.  By proposing an annual national test, the Commission seeks to test the system in an organized, controlled manner, gather data from the EAS participants, and apply what is learned.  Under the Commission's proposed rule, the annual test would replace one of the required monthly tests and participants would have at least two months advance notice of the nationwide test.  EAS participants would be required to log the test results of the test and provide information on the results to the Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau within 30 days of the test.  The Commission seeks input on the proposed rule, including whether once a year is sufficient, and what the costs would be attendant to the testing and reporting.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In two just released cases, the FCC fined television stations $8000 each for failing to publicize the location of their Children's Television Programming Reports for an entire license renewal period (the cases can be found here and here).  The FCC found that any remedial steps taken by the licensees after they discovered their failures at renewal time did not excuse the failure to comply during the license term.  The Commission, in the orders, cites a survey that found "virtually all of the stations in the sample complied with the requirement to publicize the existence and location of the stations' Children's Television Programming Reports", thus dismissing arguments that the rules were vague and unclear as they do not spell out how much publicity must be given to the location of these reports.  Based on these decisions, it's obvious that not all stations in fact got the message.

These cases remind all television broadcasters that they do in fact have obligations to publicize the location of their children's television reports and the contact person at their stations for information and comments about programming directed to children.  For more information on a television station's Children's Television obligations (or, as many broadcasters know them, the Kid-vid rules) under the Communications Act and the FCC rules, including the periodic notice that should be given by television stations, check out the Davis Wright Tremaine Quarterly Reminder, the most recent of which can be found here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a decision just released, the FCC fined a noncommercial FM station $8000 for failing to make its public inspection file available when it was requested.  The FCC made clear that past cases where a noncommercial station was given only an admonition for similar violations were no longer good law, finding that the public file was an important part of the station's obligations to the public and the failure to make it available was a serious violation.  This case should serve as a warning to all stations, commercial and noncommercial, that they need to have people at the station at all times who know where the public file is located, and that all visitors who request access to the file need to be given such access.

This case was perhaps a bit more egregious than most, as the visitor who requested access to the fine was known to the station, as the person was employed by a college that had tried unsuccessfully to buy the station.  After its request to purchase the station was turned down, the prospective buyer had allegedly filed a number of pleadings at the FCC trying to force the licensee to sell the station.  When the person appeared at the station to request access to the public file, the person was first told to return another day.  After protesting that was illegal, an official of the College which is the station licensee, arrived at the scene and told the visitor that he had to leave, and could only view the public file after having made a prior appointment with the college's attorney.  When reached by phone, the attorney allegedly told the visitor to leave the premises or he would be arrested.  Only when he returned another day, after being initially turned down yet again, was the visitor eventually able to persuade the station employees that refusal to give him access to the file was illegal.  When he was finally able to gain access to the file, he stated that he found it to be incomplete.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This afternoon the Commission released an Order authorizing FM radio stations to increase power on their hybrid digital radio operations. This power increase is a welcome boost to HD radio operations and was eagerly awaited by many FM stations broadcasting in digital.  In a nutshell, the rule change allows stations to increase from the current maximum permissible level of one percent of authorized analog effective radiated power (ERP) to a maximum of ten percent of authorized analog ERP.  In raising the power permitted for digital radio operations, the Commission acknowledged that the current digital power levels are insufficient to replicate stations' analog coverage and that indoor and portable coverage are particularly diminished.  Building on proposals advocated by National Public Radio (NPR) and iBiquity, the Commission has provided for an immediate voluntary 6 dB increase in Digital ERP (except for super-powered FM stations, as discussed below).   In addition, stations will be allowed to seek authority for increases over 6 dB up to a maximum of 10 dB using an informal application process.

Once the Order becomes effective, eligible FM stations may commence operations with FM digital operating power up to -14 dBc (that is, up to a 6 dB increase), consistent with the existing IBOC notification procedures.  Stations availing themselves of the voluntary power increase must notify the FCC electronically of the increased digital power within 10 days of commencement using the Digital Notification form via the Commission's Consolidated Database System (CDBS).   The exception to this is super-powered FM stations, which, regardless of their class, are limited to the higher of either the currently permitted -20 dBc level or 10 dB below the maximum analog power that would be authorized for the particular class of station, as adjusted for the station's antenna height above average terrain.   The Audio Division's web site contains an FM Super-Powered Maximum Digital ERP Calculator available here to assist super-powered stations with determining the maximum permissible Digital ERP.  Licensees of super-powered FM stations must file an application, in the form of an informal request, for any increase in the station's FM Digital ERP. 

For power increases over 6 dB, licensees will be required to submit an application to the FCC, in the form of an informal request, for any increase in FM Digital ERP beyond 6 dB. Licensees wishing to operate with an FM Digital ERP in excess of -14 dBc must make a calculation and determine the station's max permissible Digital ERP as detailed in paragraphs 17 through 20 in the Order, available here.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Reading the trade press and the blogs, one would think that the Tim Tebow ad that will reportedly air during the Super Bowl presented novel, controversial legal issues.  In fact, while we haven't seen the ad, from what we've read, there do not seem to be significant legal issues - most particularly ones that arise from an FCC perspective.  The word is that this ad is pro-life, telling his mother's story of why she decided to have her child after a medical recommendation that she not, and how that child grew up to be a famous quarterback.  Where are the FCC legal issues?  Even were this ad to explicitly address a "controversial issue of public importance", like the abortion debate, and even were stations running the ad not willing to take ads from pro-choice groups (and there is no indication that this sort of rejection of opposing viewpoints has occurred), as the debates earlier this year on the airwaves and over cable channels made clear, there is no longer any Fairness Doctrine enforced by the FCC.  Thus, there is no FCC requirement for stations having to give equal time to competing sides of any particular issue (even when the Fairness Doctrine existed, there was never an obligation for strict equal time - a broadcast station just needed to, in some manner, present both sides of an  issue)

At most, were the ad to advocate some specific Federal action, there might trigger an FCC obligation for stations that carry the ad to place a note in their public file about the ad and the amount paid to run it (see our post here), but otherwise the issue seems to be a tempest in a teapot.  Since the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters have been assumed to be able to exercise their own editorial discretion to decide what serves their audience and what doesn't.  In the vast majority of cases, no one bats an eye.  But combine celebrity, the Super Bowl and a reference to a political hot-button issue, and you have a media controversy - even though there is no legal one.  So, unless the ad has some content that no one seems to be contemplating, the folks at the FCC should be able to relax and simply watch the game (assuming no clothing malfunctions or similar unexpected events - which we will leave to another post on another day...)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the Super Bowl and the Winter Olympics less than 2 weeks away, and March Madness not far behind, we once again need to remind our readers that all three are trademarked terms, meaning that their use, particularly for commercial purposes, is limited.  We've wrote here last year about the use of the term "Super Bowl" in commercials, and about the use of "Olympics" two years ago (here).  Our warning then bears repeating now - the trademarked terms should not be used in commercial messages except by authorized advertisers.  These advertisers have paid big bucks to be able to say that they are an Olympic sponsor, or that they are having a Super Bowl sale.  The holders of these trademarks enforce them rigorously (so that they can get the big bucks from the official advertisers), so don't risk their use without official permission.  See our Super Bowl post from last year for details on how to refer to these events without running afoul of trademark limitations.

As we wrote last year, this does not prevent all use of these terms.  News reports about the events can still be given.  DJs can still chat about who is going to win the Super Bowl, or about the latest judging controversy in Ice Dancing at the Winter Olympics.  But don't try to commercially exploit these terms (e.g. saying that you are "Springfield's March Madness station") unless you have really paid for the rights to use the trademarked term.  Be careful, as a cute promotional idea can end up costing your station far more than you intended. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, freeing corporations to use their corporate funds to take explicit positions on political campaigns, has been mostly analyzed by broadcast trade publications as a good thing - creating one more class of potential buyers for broadcaster's advertising time during the political season - which seems to almost be nonstop in these days of intense partisan battles in Washington and in the statehouses throughout the country.  What has not been addressed are the potential legal issues that this "third party" money may pose for broadcasters during the course of political campaigns.  Not only will an influx of money from non-candidate groups require that broadcasters review the contents of  more commercials to determine if the claims that they make are true, but it may also give rise to the return of the Zapple doctrine, one of the few remnants of the Fairness Doctrine never specifically repudiated by the FCC, but one which has not been actually applied in over a quarter of a century.  Public file obligations triggered by these ads also can not be overlooked. 

First, the need for broadcasters to vet the truth of allegations made in political ads sponsored by non-candidate advertisers.  As we have written before(see our post here), the political broadcasting rules enforced by the FCC allow broadcasters to run ads sponsored by the candidates themselves without fear of any liability for the claims made in those ads.  In fact, the Communications Act forbids a station from censoring a candidate ad.  Because the station cannot censor the candidate ad (except in the exceptionally rare situation where the airing of the ad might violate a Federal felony statute), the broadcaster has no liability for the contents of the ad.  So candidates can say whatever they want about each other - they can even lie through their teeth - and the broadcaster need not fear any liability for defamation based on the contents of those ads.  This is not so for ads run by third parties - like PACs, Right to Life groups, labor unions, unincorporated associations like MoveOn.org and, after the Citizens United case, corporations. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today launched a proceeding on the Future of Media in the digital age and put out a call for comments on a variety of issues.  The goal of the Future of Media project, in the Commission's own words, is to produce a report to provide "a clear, precise assessment of the current media landscape, analyze policy options and, as appropriate, make policy recommendations to the FCC, other government entities, and other parties."  The effort is being spearheaded by Steven Waldman, a former journalist and Internet entrepreneur, who is serving as a senior advisor to FCC Chairman Genachowski, as we wrote earlier.  According to the Public Notice issued today, the FCC's initiative seeks to respond to the rapid technological changes in the media marketplace,  financial turmoil in the traditional media, and questions about the role that traditional media will play in the future.  While the FCC intends to draw from its ongoing proceedings regarding media ownership, universal broadband, children's issues, etc., to gather info for its report, it also intends to draw on studies, comments, workshops and hearings, interviews, and outside research.  

To that end, the Public Notice seeks comment on a wide variety of issues in order to build a record for its final report, which will be issued later this year.  The current state and future of traditional journalism is one of the issues the FCC has raised, but is not the sole focus of the project.  Among the topics the FCC has identified for discussion and comment are:  the state of TV, radio, newspaper, and Internet news and information services; the effectiveness and nature of public interest obligations in a digital era; the role of public media and private sector foundations; and many others.  Not unlike the Broadband project that has consummed the Commission in recent months, by this Future of Media project, the FCC is seeking to tackle many big picture items.  In doing so, it is starting at the very beginning by asking questions as broad as:  "What are the information needs of citizens and communities and are those needs being met?"  In all, today's Public Notice contains 42 detailed questions covering six pages, which inquire about business models and financial trends; the information needs of communities and citizens; commercial media (broadcast TV, Radio, Cable, and Satellite); noncommercial and public media; Internet and mobile platforms and applications; and print media. 

Given the enormous scope of the project, its nascent stage, and the continually evolving nature of the media and technology landscape it is impossible to know what recommendations the Commission might ultimately make.  But any parties interested in informing the Commission's conclusions and future recommendations should consider participating in the proceeding.  The deadline for comments is March 8th, and interested parties can submit comments electronically through ECFS, or via the new Web site established for the project, which the FCC hopes will serve as an arena for public discussion on the future of media and any public policy recommendations.  The Future of Media web site also contains a blog to provide additional information about the project on an ongoing basis. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a recent decision, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau ruled that a tower owner should pay a fine for a single day where the required tower lights were not operational, and where no required monitoring of the tower to discover such outage was taking place.  On top of the penalty for the non-working lights, the FCC also fined the owner for the failure to report a change in ownership of the tower.  The total fine in the case was $4000 (reduced from an initial fine of $13,000 because of the tower owner's past record of compliance).

As with any FCC fine, while the fine was for one day of tower light outage, there was more to the story.  The FCC inspected the tower after receiving a complaint stating that the lights were out on a day that was almost a month before the inspection - indicating that the outage may have been in place for far longer than the one day revealed by the FCC inspection.  The tower owner admitted that the person who was supposed to conduct the required daily inspection of the tower lights had moved from the area in which the tower was located, and the owner did not know exactly when that occurred.  The owner did not get someone new to do the inspection until after the FCC inspection.  And the tower had no automatic monitoring system to determine if the lights were in fact operational.  With these admissions, it seemed clear that there was the potential that there had been a problem for a long time, so perhaps the fine was not unexpected, even though the lights were fixed within hours of the FCC report of the problem, as the issue was a simple one that the tower owner blamed on a careless repair person who had recently visited the site.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link