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

On an NAB Radio Show panel that included the news that LPFM licenses are, in some cases, holding up the processing of certain FM applications while solutions to potential interference to the LPFM station are sought (see out post here), a representative of the Audio Services Division of the FCC's Media Bureau also revealed that the FCC is routinely accepting and processing requests for special temporary authority to allow AM stations to rebroadcast their signals on FM translators.  Such STA requests must follow the guidelines that are contained in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would authorize such use on a permanent basis (see out summary of that proposal here). We have seen some of these requests already granted.

So, AM broadcasters interested in FM translators should start looking for translator stations to use for such purposes realizing, of course, that any FCC authority is temporary and could be overturned when the FCC ultimately makes its final decision in the rulemaking proceeding.  There is no window for the filing of new applications, so an AM licensee seeking to use the STA process must find an existing translator to use for this purpose.  But the opportunity is there, and AM broadcasters can take advantage of it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

During a panel at the NAB Radio Show, FCC Audio Services Division Chief Peter Doyle was asked a question about the processing of FM applications filed under the new simplified process for upgrades in their technical facilities and for changes in their cities of license (see our post here for details about that process).  The question dealt with rumors that the processing of certain FM applications were being delayed if the proposed upgrade would cause interference problems to any LPFM stations which would threaten their existence.  We have written about our concerns that such a policy was possible, here.  According to the response yesterday, these delays are indeed taking place - meaning that LPFM stations that are supposed to be secondary services which yield to new or improved full-service stations are now blocking improvements in the facilities of these full-power stations.

Doyle explained that, at the moment, there is no policy of denying the full-service station's application - but these applications are being put on hold if they would impede an LPFM's ability to continue to operate in order to study options as to how the LPFM service might be preserved through a technical change or through agreements to accept interference.  While no final determination has been reached as to what will happen to the applications if there is no available resolution to the LPFM interference issue, he pointed to the pending rulemaking (pending for almost two years) that would give LPFM's higher status, and in effect allow them to preclude new or improved full-service operations.  There was some indication that these actions were being taken pursuant to the potential policies set out in that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - even though these policies were simply proposals advanced for public comment and have not yet been adopted by the full Commission.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today extended the deadline for submitting comments on the voluminous media ownership studies released by the Commission late this summer in connection with the ongoing review of the Media Ownership Rules.  Comments on the studies were originally due by October 1st, with Reply comments due by October 16th.  At the request of several parties, the Commission has now extended the time to comment until October 22nd, with Reply Comments now due by November 1st. 

The Commission's media ownership studies were released as part of the FCC's comprehensive quadrennial review of its media ownership rules.  Specifically, the ten research studies were designed to inform its decisions in the proceeding.  In today's extension, available here, the Commission recognized that "there is a large amount of material to be reviewed and that some parties may need additional time to complete their review and analysis."  Further information on the ongoing multiple ownership rule making proceeding can be found in our earlier blogs, including this recent posting. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On Monday, the FCC issued a $4,000 fine to a cable operator for the use of a so-called Video News Release, or VNR, in a news segment focusing on consumer issues.   The facts in this case are very similar to the facts in dozens of other inquiries involving broadcast television stations that remain pending before the Commission, and this decision could very well signal the beginning of a number of forfeitures aimed at cracking down on the (until recently) common practice of using video material provided for free by third-parties without providing attribution or a sponsorship identification.  The decision was issued by the Enforcement Bureau and not the full Commission, and goes to lengths to explain that the sponsorship rules apply to cablecasting material aired by cable operators, and that the use of even a free video (i.e. with no consideration promised or paid to the cable operator or broadcaster) can require a sponsorship ID, even if no political or controversial issue is involved. 

In this case, a cable network aired potions of video from a VNR produced on behalf of a product called "Nelson's Rescue Sleep."  No consideration was given or promised to the cable operator, but the VNR was provided to the cable operator for free.  The sponsorship ID rules typically come into play when money, services, or other valuable consideration is given in exchange for airing the particular material.  Normally, the phrase "services or other valuable consideration" does not typically include services or property furnished without charge or at a nominal fee, such as the VNR.  In this case, however, the FCC concluded that the video was furnished in consideration for the product being identified to a degree greater than what was reasonably related to the use of the product or service in the broadcast. The VNR was included in a news segment about non-prescription sleep aids, but the segment did not contain any other sleep-aid products.  And (because it was a VNR for the product itself) the segment dwelled on and discussed at length the underlying product "Nelson's Rescue Sleep." Citing to a 44-year old FCC Public Notice that provided guidance to broadcasters in the early 1960s about the sponsorship ID rules, the FCC found that the use of the VNR in this situation obviated the exception for free material and that a sponsorship identification should have been included.   A copy of the FCC's decision is available here. 

The FCC's forfeiture order was adopted exactly one year to the day that the material was aired by the cable operator, and thus, seems to have been issued now so as to avoid the possibility that the statute of limitations prevent the Commission from issuing a fine.  Although this is the first such VNR fine against either a cable operator or television broadcaster, it seems likely that more such decisions will be forthcoming.  Indeed, Commissioner Adelstein, who has championed this novel interpretation of the sponsorship identification rules, was quick to issue a statement applauding the Enforcement Bureau for its decision.  Given that the decision seems to cross into the territory of a cable operator's or broadcaster's editorial and journalistic discretion protected by the First Amendment, one can imagine that the cable operator (and any broadcasters fined in the future) will attack vigorously the FCC's interpretation of its sponsorship ID rules with respect to VNRs.

UPDATE:  On Thursday (September 27, 2007), the Commission issued a further decision involving the same cable operator, fining the operator an additional $16,000 for four more VNR incidents similar to the one discussed above.  In each instance, the cable operator included video that was received for free in a program aired on the system without attribution or a sponsorship identification.  The Commission concluded that the free video clips contained extensive images, discussion, and mention of the particular product, which triggered the sponsorship ID rules.  A copy of that decision is available here. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

At last Thursday's Public Hearing on multiple ownership in Chicago, about which we wrote here, a statement was read by a spokesman for Presidential candidate Barack Obama.  According to press reports, the statement expressed the candidate's positions favoring shorter license renewal terms for broadcasters so that they would be subject to more public scrutiny, as well as criticizing the FCC for allowing broadcast consolidation.  These thoughts essentially echo the comments of FCC Commissioner Copps, especially on the subject of license renewal terms, whose views we wrote about here.  While many press reports have asked if this statement by Senator Obama foreshadows the broadcast ownership debate becoming part of the presidential campaign issues, we worry that it may signal a far broader attack on broadcasters during the upcoming political year.  The statement by Senator Obama is but one of a host of indications that broadcasters may face a rash of legislative issues that are now on the political drawing boards.

Broadcasters make easy targets for politicians as everyone is an expert on radio and television - after all, virtually everyone watches TV or listens to the radio and thus fancies themselves knowledgeable of what is good and bad for the public.  But those in Congress (and on the FCC) have the ability to do something about it.  And, with an election year upon us, they have the added incentive to act, given that any action is bound to generate at least some publicity and, for some, this may be their last opportunity to enact legislation that they feel important.  We've already written about the renewed emphasis, just last week, on passing legislation to overturn the Second Circuit's decision throwing out the FCC's fines on "fleeting expletives" and making the unanticipated use of one of those "dirty words" subject again to FCC indecency fines.  Clearly, no Congressman wants to be seen as being in favor of indecency (look at the rise in the indecency fines to $325,000 per occurrence which was voted through Congress just before the last election), and First Amendment issues are much more nuanced and difficult to explain to the voter, so watch this legislation.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

A reminder to all radio and television broadcast stations, both commercial and noncommercial, that Quarterly Issues Programs Lists reporting on the important issues facing the stations' communities, and the programs aired in the months of July, August, and September dealing with those issues must be prepared and placed in the stations' public inspection file by October 10, 2007.  The failure to have a complete set of Quarterly Issues Programs lists, which were timely prepared and placed in a station’s public file, can lead to significant fines at license renewal time so all stations are urged to prepare their Quarterly Issues Programs lists in a timely fashion.  See our full advisory here for further details.

In addition, commercial full power and Class A low power television stations are reminded that Children's Television Programming Reports on FCC Form 398 must be prepared and filed electronically with the FCC by October 10, 2007.  The Reports must also be placed in the stations' public inspection files by that date.  Our recent advisory is available here with all the details, including the requirements for DTV stations airing multiple program streams and details about the new Form 398.  Quarterly certifications regarding compliance with the commercial limitations in Children's Programming should also be prepared and placed in the public inspection file by October 10th.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Over a year ago, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on amendments to the FCC's multiple ownership rules.  Issues from newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, to local TV and radio ownership limits are all being considered.  Our summary of the issues raised in the NPRM is available here.  The FCC has been holding field hearings throughout the country on its proposals, gathering public comment on the proposals - the most recent having been held in Chicago last night.  Only one more field hearing to go and the Commission will have conducted the six hearings that it promised.  Many, including me, had felt that the timing was such that no decision in this proceeding could be reached until 2008 and, as that is an election year, the decision could quite well be put off until after the election to avoid making it a political issue.  However, there are now signs that some at the FCC are gearing up to try to reach a decision late this year or early next - presumably far enough away from the election for any controversy to quiet before the election.  With this push, others are expressing concern about a rush to judgment on the issues, and may well seek to delay it further.

Evidence of the FCC's increasing attention to the multiple ownership issues include the recent Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asking questions about minority ownership and making proposals on how that ownership can be encouraged (proposals we summarized here).  The FCC has also asked for comment on several studies that it commissioned to look at the effects of ownership consolidation in the broadcast media (the public notice asking for comments is here, and the studies can be found here).  Comments on the Further Notice and the ownership studies are due on October 1, with replies due on October 15.  Some have suggested that this time table is unnecessarily accelerated, especially as certain peer review documents on the ownership studies were just recently released.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This week, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives to make a single use of an expletive on a broadcast station subject to sanctions from the FCC.  This parallels legislation that was introduced in the Senate this summer, about which we wrote, here.  The point of this legislation is to overturn the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which held that the FCC could not levy indecency fines on stations for airing a single isolated "fleeting expletive". As we wrote when the Senate Bill was introduced, the Second Circuit decision overturning the FCC's fines was technically based, not on constitutional issues, but instead on the fact that the FCC had not rationally defended the distinctions that it made as to when to impose fines for the use of an expletive, and when to allow the use of the expletives without sanction (as in the airing of Saving Private Ryan).  The Court also faulted the Commission for not providing guidelines as to what was indecent and what was that were clear enough to alert a broadcaster as to what was permitted and what was not.  When a decision is based on an administrative failure to rationally justify its decision, Congress can pass a law providing that justification.  Here, that would give the FCC permission to fine a broadcaster for the use of a single expletive.  If the decision was constitutionally based, finding that the regulation of the use of fleeting expletives was unconstitutional, then the ability of Congress to pass a law permitting FCC action that the Court found was unconstitutional is severely limited.

However, while not basing the decision on constitutional grounds, the Second Circuit decision did go out of its way to question the constitutionality of the FCC's indecency enforcement, but deciding that it did not need to decide the issue of constitutionality as it had already thrown out the FCC fines.  While the Second Circuit passed on that issue, another court may well reach the constitutional question in the near future.  On September 11, the Third Circuit, the same Court which invalidated many of the FCC's 2003 liberalized multiple ownership rules, heard arguments on the FCC's $550,000 fine imposed on the CBS owned-and-operated television stations for the Janet Jackson breast-baring Super Bowl incident.   CBS, represented by an attorney from our firm, argued that the FCC's indecency rules are unconstitutional.  The Court seemed engaged in the issue, according to press reports, asking many questions.  As the briefs have been filed and the arguments made, the Court decision could come at any time.  Sometimes these decisions can be released quickly, though at other times the final decision can take many months to be written.  Broadcasters will have to wait for this further clarification.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

SoundExchange yesterday announced that it had signed agreements with 24 small commercial webcasters.  Contrary to what many press reports have stated, this is not a settlement with Small Commercial Webcasters.  In truth, what was announced was that 24 small webcasters had signed on to the unilateral offer that SoundExchange made to small webcasters, about which we wrote here.  Essentially, this is the same offer that SoundExchange made in May, which was rejected by many independent webcasters as being insufficient to allow for the hoped for growth of  these companies, and insufficient to encourage investment in these companies.  These larger Small Commercial webcasters, including those that participated in the Copyright Royalty Board proceeding, rejected that offer and instead have sought to negotiate a settlement with SoundExchange that would meet their needs.  Instead of reaching a true settlement with these companies that had participated throughout the CRB proceeding and now have an appeal pending before the Court of Appeals, SoundExchange instead announced that their unilateral proposal was accepted by 24 unnamed webcasters.  Thus, rather than negotiating a settlement, if anything this announcement shows that SoundExchange has not been willing to negotiate - as it has not moved substantively off the proposal they announced over 4 months ago.

While 24 webcasters may have signed on, it would seem that these must be entities that don't expect to grow their revenues to $1.25 million, or grow audiences that reach the 5,000,000 tuning hour limit at which, under the SoundExchange-imposed agreement, the webcaster needs to start paying at the full CRB-imposed royalty rate.  Moreover, the agreements only cover music from SoundExchange members, excluding much independent music that many webcasters play.  For music from companies that are not SoundExchange members, a webcaster has to pay at full CRB rates.  For a small service playing major label music, the agreement may cover their needs, but for the larger companies playing less mainstream music, a different deal is needed. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

At today’s Future of Music Policy Summit in Washington, DC, there has been much talk about issues of interest to broadcasters, including the performance right in sound recordings for terrestrial radio, multiple ownership, and many other issues. The Future of Music Coalition, whose website is here, is dedicated to bringing the voice of musicians and the public to Congress and other decision-makers in Washington. Thus, the Coalition is involved in music issues before Congress and the Copyright Office, as well as before the FCC and other agencies on issues including multiple ownership, net neutrality, and similar matters. Members of the Coalition have been involved in the Low Power FM debate. At the panel session titled "The Hill Was Alive with the Sound of Music," dealing with legislative matters affecting music that are pending or which may arise before Congress, only one issue was perceived as being likely to be considered and potentially resolved by this Congress, before the Presidential election.  That was the issue of LPFM, where bills have been introduced in Congress to eliminate the restrictions that prohibited LPFM stations from causing third-adjacent channel interference to other stations.

The panel included staffers from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, who both indicated that, while there were many other issues of importance to those in the music industry that might be considered this year, LPFM was the one issue that had a chance of actually being adopted this year, given bipartisan support for pending bills.   The pending legislation, The Local Community Radio Act of 2007, has been introduced in both the House and the Senate.  This legislation would lift restrictions on interference to third adjacent channel stations - restrictions which were adopted by Congress about 7 years ago.  We wrote about this legislation, here.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Last Friday, the rules on over-the-air digital radio for AM and FM stations - the IBOC system or, as it is commonly known, HD Radio - became effective.  The most immediate effect of the new rules, which we summarized here, is the ability of AM stations to operate using the IBOC system at night.  The Commission determined that such operation offered more benefits than any interference it might create.  The final rules also allowed stations to begin digital operations - and multicast operations - on a permanent basis without prior FCC approval.  As these rules take effect, some stations are beginning to look to the multicast channels to provide new programming opportunities.

NPR has, in many ways, led the efforts to utilize digital radio for multicast operations.  In today's Washington Post, there is an article about the city's NPR affiliate, WAMU, which has recently announced plans to take its multicast operations to a new level.  WAMU had in the past programmed a substantial amount of bluegrass music, a local DC favorite.  Over time, that programming had been reduced as the station broadcast more and more talk programming.  The station had moved bluegrass to a full time Internet radio stream, and has now announced plans to move all of the remaining bluegrass and roots music programming (which had been limited to Sundays) to one of its IBOC digital multicast streams - and to include live announcers during at least some of this digital programming.  The Post article quotes the station manager as saying that the local Best Buy now knows that HD Radio is different from the service that XM or Sirius provide.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link

Late Tuesday night, in a meeting originally scheduled to start at 9:30 in the morning, the FCC adopted an order establishing the rules governing the carriage of broadcast signals by cable operators after the February 17, 2009 transition to digital television.  While the full text of the Commission’s action has not yet been released (and may not be released for quite some time), based on the FCC’s formal news release and the statements made by the commissioners at the meeting and in their accompanying press releases, we can provide the following summary of these important FCC actions.

First, for a period of at least three years after the February 17, 2009 transition from analog to digital broadcasting, cable operators will be required to make the signals of local broadcast stations available to all of their subscribers by either:  (1) carrying the television station's digital signal in an analog format, or (2) carrying the signal only in digital format, provided that all subscribers have the necessary equipment to view the broadcast content.  This rule reflects a compromise position offered by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and is regarded as less burdensome on cable systems then the FCC's original proposal of an indefinite analog carriage obligation. 

Second, the FCC reaffirmed its existing requirement that cable systems must carry High Definition (HD) broadcast signals in HD format, and further that it must carry signals with “no material degradation”, i.e., with picture quality as good as any other programming carried by the operator.  In affirming its "no material degradation" standard, the FCC rejected a proposal by the broadcast industry that would have required operators to pass-through all of the bits in digital television broadcast signal.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

The FCC recently issued a Public Notice reminding television broadcasters of the requirement that, after January 1, 2008, television stations (as well as cable and satellite television systems) must, in each calender quarter, close caption at least 75% of their Pre-Rule Programming.  Pre-Rule Programming is that programming first broadcast or exhibited prior to 1998 for analog programming and prior to 2001 for digital programming.  New Programming, that produced after those dates, should already be captioned by stations.  For details of this requirement (including the different rules that apply to Spanish-language programming), see our firm's memo on this subject, here.  Television station operators should review their programming schedules and contracts to be sure that they will be ready to meet these obligations.

The FCC Public Notice also reminds broadcasters that these requirements are different than the obligations of television broadcasters to provide emergency information visually - not closed captioned, but  visible to all.  We have written about how serious the FCC takes these emergency obligations in connection with fines that have been issued to broadcasters for providing on-air information orally without any visual presentation for the hearing impaired .  See, for instance, our entries, here and here.  With hurricane season still in full swing, broadcasters must keep these rules in mind, and remind their on-air staff to remember to comply with these obligations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Annual EEO Public File Report Deadline - October 1

Affected States:  Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Mariana Islands, Missouri, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Washington

By October 1, 2007, radio and television Station Employment Units (SEU) in the states listed above must:  (1) prepare their Annual EEO Public File Report; (2) place it in the public inspection files of all stations comprising the SEU; and (3) post the Report on the websites, if any station in the SEU has a website.  The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the station's or the SEU's EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and provides information about the recruitment and outreach that the station conducted in the past year.  The states with the October 1 filing deadline are:  Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Mariana Islands, Missouri, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Washington. 

In addition to preparing the Annual EEO Public File Report by October 1, larger radio stations in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands must also prepare and file with the Commission an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report.  Please note, only radio station SEUs located in these three jurisdictions with 11 or more full-time employees are required to file an FCC Form 397 by October 1, 2007.

Biennial Ownership Report Deadline - October 1

Affected States:   Radio:  Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Mariana Islands, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Washington;  Television:  Iowa and Missouri

By October 1, 2007, radio stations in Alaska, American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Mariana Islands, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Washington, and television stations in Iowa and Missouri must prepare and file an FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Report with the FCC.  Similarly, noncommercial stations in these states must file a Biennial Ownership Report on FCC Form 323-E.  Ownership Reports are filed every other year, reporting on changes in the licensee’s ownership and updating the information requested by the form.

The timing for the filing of the Biennial Ownership Report and the preparation of the Annual EEO Public File Report is based on the anniversary of the filing of the station's license renewal.  In turn, the renewal cycles are organized by state and type of service, and are staggered based on the FCC's prearranged schedule.  Periodically, we will remind groups of stations as to their upcoming deadlines, and stations should be vigilant to make these required filings.  Copies of our complete reminder memos containing additional information on each of these requirements can be found here (Ownership) and here (EEO).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today issued three orders imposing fines on broadcasters - cutting no slack to anyone.  These cases demonstrate how important strict compliance with all FCC rules is to avoid fines before the current Commission.  The first decision imposed a fine of $2800 on a broadcaster for having an unfenced tower - where the broadcaster claimed that the fence was temporarily removed to facilitate the clearing of brush as required by local authorities to remove a potential fire hazard.  While the FCC seemed to recognize that the fence removal was temporary, and that it was missing for only a few weeks while weed killer was being applied at the site, the Commission still imposed the fine - requiring that access to an AM tower always be restricted, prohibiting open access even for a short period.

The second case was a decision which imposed a fine of $2000 on a broadcaster for operating from an unauthorized transmitter site.  While the broadcaster had received Special Temporary Authority (an "STA")  to operate from the site, the STA expired.  The broadcaster filed an extension request, but forgot to include the filing fee check.  The broadcaster claims that he re-filed the request, and had a canceled check to prove it, although the Commission had no record of the re-filed STA (though the FCC did acknowledge having received the check).  Finding that it had no record of the re-filed STA, and further finding that the applicant should have inquired about the failure to receive an STA extension after 180 days (the length of an STA), the Commission imposed the fine on the broadcaster.  While this case is certainly complicated by the missing extension request, given the canceled check one would assume that broadcaster must have filed something, and the FCC's usual rule is that if an STA extension is on file, the station can continue to operate.  Of course, with an extension that was pending for 2 years, probably some inquiry was warranted.  But whether it was a $2000 mistake is a different question.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

The Commission today granted a 60-day extension of time for the relocation of broadcast auxiliaries in the 2 GHz band.  The extension of time is in response to the joint petition submitted last week by Sprint Nextel, MSTV, NAB, and Society of Broadcast Engineers requesting that the Commission waive the current BAS transition completion date for an additional twenty-nine months.  A copy of the Commission's Public Notice can be found here.  Barring this extension of time, Sprint Nextel would have been obligated to complete the relocation of all BAS facilities by September 7, 2007, which clearly would have been impossible.  The Commission’s 60-day extension of time will push the deadline back to November 6, 2007, and allow Commission time to consider the issues raised by the petitioners and whether a two and a half year extension is warranted. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As we're approaching the anniversary of September 11, it may be appropriate that the FCC issued an order on Friday upholding a fine imposed on a radio station that did not have an operating EAS system.  The station, while it had a system in place that was capable of transmitting the required EAS tones, had not received any EAS alerts for about a year, and had not entered any reasons for that failure in its station log at any time during the period.  The FCC initially issued an $8000 fine, but reduced the fine to $6400 based on a showing that the station did not have any history of past violations.  However, even though the station was operating at reduced power for a significant period of time due to towers damaged by a storm, the FCC refused to reduce the fine further based on financial hardship as the fine did not exceed 2% of the station's average gross revenue during the previous three years.

The FCC will reduce fines for a variety of reasons - the most common being the past good record of the station.  In most cases, as here, a showing that the station has not previously been fined will be sufficient to demonstrate the past compliance of the station and justify some reduction in the amount of the fine.  Stations also often plead that they cannot afford to pay a fine.  The 2% of gross revenue standard announced by the Commission in this case seems to set the threshold at which the Commission will consider that plea.  To prove that a reduction of a fine is in order, according to this case, a station needs to submit financial statements showing the past three years performance, and demonstrating that the proposed fine will exceed 2% of the station's average gross revenues.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Fred Thompson's formal announcement of his candidacy on the Tonight Show on Wednesday has focused more attention on the FCC's Equal Opportunities doctrine.  We wrote about the issue, here, highlighting the fact that evolving FCC policy has found that more and more broadcast programming is exempt from the Equal Time rules, as it is considered to be bona fide news interview programming.  The Hearst Argyle television stations around the country last night ran a segment in their news programming on that issue - a segment in which I was interviewed.  That segment can be viewed, here - a genuine bona fide news interview if ever there was one.

The television segment is also interesting in that it asked the question whether the FCC's rules will ever be expanded to the new media.  While the rules do apply to some new media (like satellite radio), extending them to the Internet seems unlikely.  How could such rules ever be applied to the hundreds of thousands of individualized web sites spread across the Internet.  The Federal Election Commission has been struggling with issues of whether it should extend its campaign spending and contribution limits to the Internet, most recently in announcing a decision that favorable comments about candidates made in blogs are not campaign contributions subject to FEC rules.  The FEC took the position that blogs are media outlets exempt from FEC regulation - much like the FCC's decisions expanding the scope of the news interview exception from the Equal Opportunities doctrine.  People get their news and opinion from more and more diverse sources, and the government seems to be correctly moving in the right direction of allowing this diverse political discussion to flourish free from the hand of regulation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a very unusual process - one that is probably unprecedented - the FCC last week announced that it is opening a window for parties to file applications for a new AM station to serve Rockland County, New York.  AM stations are traditionally made available for filing on an on-demand basis - when the FCC accepts applications for new stations, parties can file in any location in the country, specifying any city of license that they select, as long as the station that they propose will not create interference to existing stations.  This is unlike FM and TV, where there is a two step process - new channels are first allotted at specific locations based on a party's request, but that party gets no rights to the channel.  Instead, after the allotment has been made, anyone can file for in a specified window seeking a construction permit to build the new station.  In this window, the FCC has adopted a unique process for an AM stations, a process much more like that used in FM and TV.  The Commission had been asked by a party for permission to operate a new station in Rockland County.  Instead of simply permitting that party to build a station without competition, the FCC decided that a new station was necessary to provide emergency information about the nuclear power plant in the Rockland area, but determined that anyone could file for that channel.  Applications for the channel (1700 AM - on the expanded band, for which there have been no applications for almost 10 years since the first set of expressions of interest were taken), will be accepted from October 1 through October 5.

In order to give parties the ability to prepare applications, the FCC is imposing a freeze on the filing of minor change applications for AM stations throughout the country during the filing window.  Any minor change application that is filed during the window will be returned.  So if you are planning an application for a technical change to your AM station, you need to plan to avoid that filing window.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On Friday, the FCC showed released two decisions – both dealing with a handful of inadvertent violations of the Commission’s rules on advertising directed to children. In one case, a licensee admitted in its license renewal application 4 violations of the rules and was fined $8,000. In another, the licensee admitted 8 violations, received no fine at all, instead being only admonished for its errors. Why the difference?

The FCC justified the difference in treatment based on the nature of the violations.  In reality, the station that did not receive any fine actually broadcast more commercial material in excess of the limits on the amount of advertising permitted in children's program than did the station that was fined. The reason – “program length commercials.” These are instances where, in a commercial message, a character from the surrounding program appears. In that situation, the FCC considers the entire program as a commercial, and thus the violation is considered much more serious than a mere overage in the time limits on commercial material in children’s programs. The station that received the fine had 3 program length commercials, while the station that was not fined simply ran more commercial matter than permitted by the rules – and did not have any program length commercials. But are these distinctions really justified?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today released its agenda for its September open meeting, to be held on September 11.  As might be expected, the Commission is to consider a number of matters dealing with public safety and homeland security issues for communications companies.   However, the Commission will also be considering a number of items dealing with cable television.  This includes the proceeding on the obligations of cable systems to carry broadcast television stations after the digital transition.  Also to be considered are a proceeding involving the possible extension of the rules restricting cable systems with interests in programming networks from having exclusive rights to that programming, and another proceeding addressing issues left over from the Commission's order adopting rules restricting the ability of local franchising authorities to delay the franchise applications of competitive cable systems (i.e. those that will compete in a franchise area with the existing system).  Comments in each of these proceeding were only received by the FCC in the last few months - so the Commission being ready to act on these matters this quickly is unusual.

Our firm has published memos on each of these issues.  The memo on the post-transition obligation of cable systems to carry television stations can be found here.  A summary of the proceeding on the rights to exclusive cable programming can be found here.  The advisory dealing with the Commission decision on local franchising authorities and their processing of applications for competitive franchises can be found here.  More on these issues after next week's meeting.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link