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

At last Tuesday's FCC meeting, the Commission adopted a controversial order, over the objection of two Commissioners, that could limit the processing of some applications for improvements by some full power FM stations, and would restrict translator applications, all in the name of encouraging Low Power FM (LPFM) stations to provide outlets for expression by groups that cannot get access to full-power radio stations (see our summary of that action here).  In recent weeks, two ideas have received some publicity providing an alternative outlet for these prospective local broadcasters - and both provide a simple solution (one more immediate and ad hoc than that other), but both leading to the same result - why not just extend the FM band by using TV channel 6?

The current FM band begins at 88.1 MHz, a channel that is actually immediately adjacent to TV Channel 6.  The FCC has for years restricted operations of noncommercial FM stations (which operate from 88.1 to 91.9 on the FM dial) in areas where there are Channel 6 TV stations in order to prevent the radio stations from creating interference to the reception of the TV stations.  That's while you will often find fewer noncommercial stations, or ones with weaker coverage, in communities that have TV Channel 6 licensees.  TV stations use an FM transmission system for their audio.  Thus, you will also find that most FM receivers (especially ones without digital tuners) will pick up the audio from TV channel 6 if tuned all the way to the left of the dial.  The short-term solution to expanding the FM band came from one broadcaster who noted that fact.

Continue Reading...

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

The New York Times recently published an article about NBC's owned and operated station in New York City acceptance of advertising for liquor.  While ads for beer and wine have been a staple on broadcast stations (though see our discussion of the limits on that advertising, here), ads for other alcoholic beverages ads have been less frequent.  Many broadcasters have for years believed that such ads were prohibited by the FCC or some other government agency.  In fact, alcohol ads have not been prohibited by law, but instead by voluntary actions of trade associations representing broadcasters and the alcoholic beverage industry .

Until the early 1980s, the National Association of Broadcasters had a voluntary code of conduct for broadcasters, suggesting good standards and practices for broadcasters: limiting some broadcast content while encouraging broadcasters to air other programming perceived to be in the public interest.  Among the conduct that the Code prohibited was the advertising of hard liquor. While the NAB Code was not mandatory for broadcasters, in filing many routine applications for new stations and for the acquisition of existing stations, the FCC in the past had requirements that the potential broadcasters explain how their programming would serve the public interest.  Most applicants would shorthand their compliance plans by simply promising to abide by the NAB code, in effect binding themselves to the code through those representations made to the FCC.  The Code was in place until the early 1980s, when the Department of Justice became concerned that code provisions suggesting maximum commercial loads and similar matters functioned as a restraint of trade in violation of the antitrust laws, and the NAB Code was abandoned.

Continue Reading...

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

For Tuesday's FCC meeting, the Commission had an agenda crowded with items dealing with the cable television industry.  The issues that were to be discussed may well have provided the controversy that caused the Commission to start its meeting 12 hours after its scheduled beginning.  At the end of the day, two controversial issues were discussed, prompting strong rhetoric from the Commissioners.  Two specific items were adopted over dissent from some of the Commissioners.  In the first, the Commission agreed to collect more information from cable systems about their subscriber numbers to determine if the cable industry has surpassed the 70/70 threshold, (passing 70 percent of all U.S. television households with 70 percent of those households subscribing to cable) which would open a statutory door for the Commission to adopt more intrusive cable regulations.  Second, the FCC slashed the costs of leased access to cable channels, cutting the costs for non-affiliated programming companies that want to lease channel capacity on cable systems to provide their programs.  Details about both of these actions, and some of the discussions about these items, can be found in a Bulletin published by our firm, available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today adopted new requirements for television broadcasters to quarterly file a report with the FCC quantifying their service to the public.  The order also requires that stations keep their public file on their website, if they have a website.  Broadcasters will also be required to broadcast twice each day a notice as to how listeners can find their public file.  This order resolves some of the issues raised in a rulemaking proceeding (about which we wrote here) begun over 7 years ago as part of the rules to govern TV's digital transition.  Yet these new rules apply to analog as well as digital television operations.  In fact, the public file rule goes into effect 60 days after the publication of the FCC's order in the Federal Register.  

The new FCC form will replace the Quarterly Issues Programs lists prepared by licensees since the mid-1980s.  The Quarterly Issues lists were originally adopted to replace more detailed reporting requirements which forced broadcasters to collect and file the same types of information that the FCC is now requesting.  While the new forms are not yet released, from the discussion at the FCC meeting, it appears that they will require the following information:

• Details about civic and election coverage provided by the station
• Information about programming from independent producers that is aired by the station
• Information about the number of Public Service announcements (PSAs) aired by the station
• A description of efforts that the station has undertaken to serve its community
• Specifics about emergency information provided by the station
• Information about how emergency and other information is provided to viewers with disabilities
• There was also some discussion that indicated that the reports would require information about how stations ascertain the needs of their community that are addressed in their programs.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In an unusually contentious FCC meeting, the FCC adopted rules that promote Low Power FM ("LPFM") stations seemingly to the detriment of FM translators and improvements in the facilities of full-power FM stations.  While no formal text of the decision has yet been released, the Commission did release a Public Notice summarizing its action.  However, given the lack of detail contained in the Notice as to some of the decisions - including capping at 10 the number of translator applications from the 2003 FM translator window that one entity can continue to process and the adoption of an interim policy that would preclude the processing of full-power FM applications that created interference that could not be resolved to an existing LPFM station - it appears that the Press Release was written before these final details were determined.  And given that the two Republican Commissioners dissented from aspects of this order supported by their Chairman (and also dissented on certain cable items considered later in the meeting), one wonders about the process that resulted in the Republican chairman of the FCC voting with the two Democratic Commissioners on an item that in many respects favors LPFM stations to the detriment of existing broadcast operators.

In any event, specific decisions mentioned in today's meeting include:

• Treating changes in the Board of Directors of an LPFM station as minor ownership changes that  can be quickly approved by the FCC
• Allowing the sale of LPFM stations from one non-profit entity to another
• Tightening rules requiring local programming on these stations
• Maintaining requirements that LPFM stations must be locally owned, and limiting groups to ownership of only one station
• Limiting applicants in the 2003 FM translator window to processing only 10 pending applications each, and requiring that they decide which 10 applications to prosecute before any settlement window opens (the two Republican Commissioners favored allowing applicants to continue to process up to 50 applications)
• Adopting an interim policy requiring that full-power FM stations that are improving their facilities in such a way that their improvement would interfere with an LPFM station to work with the LPFM to find a way to eliminate or minimize the interference.  If no resolution could be found, the full-power station's application would not be processed (which we have expressed concerns about before)
• Urging that Congress repeal the ban on the FCC making any changes that would eliminate protections for full power stations from third-adjacent channel interference from LPFMs

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By December 1, 2007, licensees of commercial and noncommercial digital television stations must file an FCC Form 317 electronically reporting on whether the station has provided any ancillary and supplementary services during the twelve-month period ending on September 30, 2007.  If the station did provide such services and generated any revenue from such services, then the FCC wants to know about it.  More importantly, the FCC wants its 5% cut of the gross revenues derived from such service.  Currently, only licensees are required to file the Form 317, so stations that do not yet hold a DTV license for some reason are not required to file.  The form is very brief, soliciting information about the license and the types of services provided, if any, and must be filed electronically through CDBS.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Federal Election Commission last week adopted new rules, implementing a relaxation in its rules defining what is considered a prohibited "electioneering communication" by a union or corporation.  This change may allow more political spending by these organizations during the upcoming election campaigns  The rule changes were adopted in response to a Supreme Court case which threw out the FEC's old rules (see our post on that decision, here).  The old rules had prohibited in the 30 days before a Federal primary or 60 days before a general election the purchase of ads by unions or corporations if they mentioned a candidate in that election.  The Supreme Court found that restriction unconstitutional, where the ad addressed an issue without mentioning the election.  Because of that Supreme Court decision, the FEC was forced to rewrite its rules.

The new rules allow corporate and union expenditures on ads on issues, even if the ads mention a candidate, unless the ad is "susceptible of no other interpretation" other than as urging a vote for or against a particular candidate.  The new rules (Section 114.15) provide a "safe harbor" which allows a union or corporation to conclude that their ad is not prohibited.  If the ad does not mention the upcoming election (or the candidacy of an office holder, or the political party of the candidate or the fact that the public will soon be voting) and does address an issue, where the mention of the candidate comes in connection with a suggestion that the public urge the candidate to support a position on the issue, then the ad will fall within that safe harbor.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC has released the agenda for its Open Meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 27.  The agenda is full of issues of importance to broadcasters, and several items may resolve issues that may be troubling - including issues relating to low power FM stations (LPFM) and resolving a long outstanding proceeding concerning the possibility of mandatory public interest obligations for TV stations.  The Commission also has on tap initiatives to encourage the entry of minorities and other new entrants into the broadcast business - even though comments on the Commission's proposals on this matter were received just a month ago.

First, the Commission is to release an Order on Low Power FM.  We have written about some of the issues that could be decided previously - including issues of whether or not to allow the assignment and transfer of such stations (here) and whether to give these stations preferences over translators and even improvements in full power stations (here and here).

On the TV side, the Commission seems ready to issue an order on the public interest obligations of television operators.  We wrote about the proposals - made as part of the Commission's DTV proceedings (though to be applicable to all TV stations), here.  Proposed rules included the standardization of quarterly issues programs lists, making station's public fies available on the Internet, and quantifying other public interest obligations. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia has set the briefing dates on the appeal filed by various webcasting groups seeking review of the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board setting Internet radio royalties for the period 2006-2010 for the use of sound recordings (see our coverage of this controversy here, and a detailed summary of the CRB decision here).  The briefs of the various webcasting groups who appealed are due on February 25.  The brief for the CRB (represented by the Department of Justice) is due on April 25, and that of SoundExchange (the "Intervenor) will be filed on May 15. Reply briefs are due on June 12, and oral arguments are yet to be scheduled. As the Court usually takes a summer break in July and August, the argument is likely to be held in the Fall of 2008, and a decision would likely not come until very late in the year or, more likely, in 2009.

Appeals were filed by the a number of groups including large webcasters (including AOL, Yahoo and DiMA), the small commercial webcasters (who I have represented), various noncommercial groups (including two collegiate broadcasting groups and the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music Licensing Committee), and various commercial broadcasters who also stream their signals on the Internet.  A group called Royalty Logic, which is seeking to become a collective that is competitive with SoundExchange, also filed an appeal of the CRB decision. 

Already, there has been a settlement announced on one narrow aspect of the case, the minimum fees for companies that stream multiple channels, limiting the per company minimum fee to $50,000.  Obviously, if there are other settlements, these appeals could become unnecessary in whole or in part.  See our summary of the remaining issues to be resolved here.

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

I had an interesting question this week - asking why beer companies won't advertise on radio stations with younger demographics.  Was it a law or just a marketing decision?  What I found is that it is a little of both.  While there are no laws specifically prohibiting the advertising of beer on radio stations with younger audiences, the Federal Trade Commission and Congress have been very concerned about all alcohol advertising, especially advertising that appears to encourage under-aged drinking. Thus, to avoid regulation, the Beer Institute has adopted voluntary standards that require its members to advertise only on radio stations which have an audience that is at least 70% comprised of those older than the legal drinking age. 

The FTC has periodically issued reports on advertising for alcoholic beverages, the last report having been issued in 2003.  Appendix D to that report contains the Beer Institute guidelines.  As set forth in those guidelines, the industry looks to audience demographics, by daypart, in deciding whether or not its members should buy time on a particular station.  If the Arbitron or similar ratings data shows 30% or more of a station's audience in a given daypart is under 21, then there will be no advertising in that daypart on the station.

Continue Reading...

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

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the possibility of imposing on broadcasters a performance royalty for the use of sound recordings.  This would be a new royalty, paying for the public performance of the recording of a song by a particular artist - a fee that would be on top of the fees that broadcasters already pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the public performance of the underlying compositions.  Unlike the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Hearing, about which we wrote here, this hearing was a much more measured proceeding, weighing carefully the implications of imposing a new royalty - both as to whether it was really necessary to encourage creation of more music by performers, and as to whether radio stations could afford to pay such a royalty.  In fact, in closing the hearing, Senators asked the representatives of the Broadcasters and of the musicians to provide the committee more information on these two issues.

The Music First Coalition seeking the new royalty was represented by two recording artists, Lyle Lovett and Alice Peacock.  Committee members were clearly excited to have Mr. Lovett testifying, thanking him repeatedly for taking time out from his touring schedule (he had played a concert the night before in suburban Washington, at the Birchmere Club in Alexandria that Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, said was attended and enjoyed by some of his staffers), and the committee was even treated to a few bars of Ms. Peacock's song "Bliss."  But between the performances and the star treatment, committee members did ask hard questions - including whether a royalty was really needed.  Both artist stated that music was their passion, that they would be performers no matter how much they were paid.  If passion drove the creation of music, asked one Senator, as the purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of artistic works, why is a new royalty on broadcasters even necessary? 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

Yesterday's unique Public Notice outlining Chairman Martin's proposals for reform of the multiple ownership rules (which we summarized here) is a surprisingly restrained and limited approach to relaxation of the ownership rules - proposing to relax only the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership prohibitions, and only in the Top 20 TV markets.  Moreover, the reform would only allow the combination of a daily newspaper and a single radio or TV station, and the newspaper-TV combination would only be allowed if the TV station is not one of the Top 4 ranked stations in the market.  While the extremely limited nature of the proposed relief has not stopped critics of big media from immediately condemning the proposal (see the joint statement of Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, here), much less attention has been paid to those multiple ownership issues that the Chairman's proposal does not seem to address - including TV duopoly relief in small markets and clarifications to the radio ownership rules requested by a number of broadcasters who sought reconsideration of the changes that arose from the 2003 ownership reforms. 

The Chairman's Public Notice is itself a new approach to regulation - putting out for public comment (due by December 11) an action of the Commission just before that action is to be taken.  Usually, the Commission proposes a set of rule changes in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and the Notice provides time for interested parties to comment and then reply to each other's comments.  Once all the written comments are submitted to the Commission, parties and their representative often make informal visits to the FCC to argue about the suggestions that have been made, and eventually, after much consideration, the Commission's staff writes up a decision which is vetted by the Commissioners and their staff, and voted on by the full FCC.  Usually, these final decisions are shrouded in secrecy - though outlines of the proposals are often the subject of informed gossip and rumor, rarely does anyone see the full set of rules that the Commission is considering until after the decision is made. 

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a Public Notice released today, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced his intention to modify only the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, among all of the multiple ownership rules under consideration.  That rule prohibits ownership of a broadcast station and daily newspaper in the same market.   Somewhat surprisingly, Martin proposes to leave all other multiple ownership rules untouched.  And his proposal only suggests clearing the combination of a newspaper and either a television station or a radio station in the Top 20 markets, and only if the TV station is not among the Top 4 rated stations in the market.  Any other combination would be presumed to be prohibited, though a showing could be made to rebut that presumption. 

As we have previously written, Chairman Martin has long signaled his desire to modify or eliminate the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule.  His specific proposal was also described in an op-ed piece he wrote for today's NY Times, and which is attached to the FCC Public Notice.  It would allow ownership of a daily newspaper and one broadcast station (radio or TV, but not both) in the top 20 DMAs (i.e. TV markets).  Even then, Martin would prohibit common ownership of a newspaper and any of the top four TV stations in that market, and would require that there be at least eight independently owned media voices (daily newspapers and full-power TV stations) following the transaction. 

Martin does not otherwise propose any changes to the other multiple ownership rules currently under consideration, including limits on local TV and radio ownership, as well as the national TV ownership cap that counts UHF stations at 50% of their actual audience.  Martin's editorial makes clear that he would also scrap the Commission's former "cross media" limits that were remanded back to the FCC by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 2004 Prometheus decision.  The "cross media" limits would have weighted various media within a market to determine what level of media ownership would be permitted in that market.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a very unusual, if not unprecedented case, the FCC announced a Public Forum on the license renewal application of WWOR-TV to assess the service provided by that station to the citizens of New Jersey.  While the FCC has in the past held evidentiary hearings on license renewal applications, those hearings were trial-type, adversarial proceedings held on specific issues before administrative law judges - not amorphous public proceedings on general questions about the service provided by the station.  This proceeding seems much more akin to the "localism" hearings that the FCC has been holding around the country (including the most recent held in Washington on Halloween), only in this case it is not conducted to come up with some general policy guidelines, but instead it is to assess whether a broadcast license worth hundreds of millions of dollars should be renewed.  While the revocation of a license for failure to serve the public interest under the license renewal standards that have been in effect for the last 11 years is unprecedented, this process may be one that other stations could face were proposals of certain Congressional and FCC proponents of license renewal reform to get their way.

As we wrote here and here, some have suggested that the FCC's license renewal process should be fundamentally reformed.  There have been suggestions that license renewal, which once occurred every three years for broadcast stations but now comes up but once every eight years, should return to that shorter cycle.  And some have suggested that the license renewal process should have more "teeth" to assess a broadcaster's performance (see, for instance, the statement of Commissioner Copps at the FCC Localism hearing in Portland, Maine in June). These teeth have been suggested to include everything from specific quantitative showings of public interest programming by the broadcaster, to local public hearings to assess the level of that service for some or all broadcast stations.  How the FCC would have the resources to conduct hearings for any meaningful number of broadcast stations is unclear - but the suggestion has been made by various proponents of license renewal reform. 

Continue Reading...

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

The Copyright Royalty Board today announced that it is taking comments on a settlement to establish royalties for the use of sound recordings to be paid by companies that are planning to provide audio services to be delivered with satellite and cable programming.  In contrast to the "preexisting subscription services" who were in existence at the time of the adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, who recently reached a settlement agreeing to pay 7 to 7.5% of gross revenues for royalties (see our post, here), this settlement is with "New Subscription Services" which did not offer these kinds of subscription services in 1998.  This settlement does not apply to subscription services provided through the Internet.  The covered "new subscription services" have agreed to pay the greater of 15% of revenue or a per subscriber fee that will escalate over the 5 years that the agreement is in effect.  Given that these new services will be providing essentially the same service as the Preexisting Services, why the difference in rate?  Perhaps, it is because the difference in the law.

As we wrote earlier this week, the Preexisting Satellite Service pay royalties set based on the standards of Section 801(b) of the Copyright Act, which takes into account a number of factors including the interest of the public in getting access to copyrighted material, the relative contributions and financial risks of the parties in distributing the copyrighted material, the stability of the industry, and the right of the copyright holder to get a fair return on their intellectual property.  By contrast, the new subscription services who entered into the settlement just announced, who weren't around at the time of the drafting of the DMCA, use the "willing buyer, willing seller" standard also used for Internet radio.  And, because of the applicability of the willing buyer willing seller standard and the apparent uncertainties of the litigation process using it, these new services apparently decided to agree to a royalty double that of the preexisting services, even though they provide essentially the same service.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This afternoon, FCC today released a Public Notice regarding the recent NCE FM filing window during which the FCC accepted applications for new noncommercial FM radio stations.  By this Public Notice, the Commission has opened a 60-day settlement period for parties to resolve any technical conflicts between their applications, either by making technical amendments or by reaching a settlement with the other parties.  Instead of providing lists indicating the applications filed in response to the window that are Singletons (i.e., don't have any conflicts and can go straight to processing), dismissed outright,  or mutually exclusive with other applications as it has done in the past, the FCC instead leaves it to the applicants to figure out which category they are in and to identify any other mutually exclusive proposals that might be blocking their proposal.

This, of course, can only be accomplished if the FCC makes the applications available in their databases, which it started to do this afternoon.  Thus, the next step is for applicants to check the FCC's CDBS database and see if their application is either:  1.) Dismissed, 2.) Accepted for Filing, or 3.) Tendered for Filing.  Dismissed is self-explanatory.  Accepted for Filing means that there were no initial conflicts and that the application will progress through the normal processing procedures, hopefully to be granted in due course.  These applications will appear as accepted for filing in the FCC's daily public notices some time next week and move on from there. 

In the event that the database reflects that an application is Tendered for Filing, this indicates that there is a conflict with at least one other application that was filed during the NCE FM window.  The next step in that case is to have your consulting engineer study the situation and see what the conflict is.  Once you have a sense of the conflicts you are facing, you can start to assess whether there is an engineering solution that might allow your application  to be granted, whether you could settle with the other applicants, or if your application could win on the basis of preferential service or a comparative point analysis.  The 60-day period for technical amendments and joint settlements starts today and will expire on January 7th.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Copyright Royalty Board has asked for comments on proposed royalty rates for the use of sound recordings by "Preexisting Subscription Services."  In adopting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress divided digital music services into various categories, each of which are assessed different royalties for the use of sound recordings. Preexisting subscription services were those digital subscription music services in existence as of the date of the adoption of the DMCA. Basically, these were the digital cable music services that were in operation in 1997.  In the proceeding now being resolved by a settlement between Music Choice (the one remaining service that was in existence in 1997) and SoundExchange, the companies propose a royalty of 7.25% of gross revenues of the service for the period 2008-2011, and 7.5% of gross revenues for 2012. A $100,000 minimum payment is due at the beginning of each year.  Comments on the settlement are due on November 30.  As set forth below, this settlement sets the stage for the upcoming decision on satellite radio royalty rates - as these two services are both governed by a royalty-setting standard that is different than that used for Internet radio.

The Copyright Royalty Board announced the proceeding to set the royalties for Preexisting Subscription Services at the same time as they initiated the proceeding to set new royalties for Satellite Radio Services - which were also considered to be preexisting services at the time of the adoption of the DMCA - not because they were actually operating, but as their services had been announced and construction permits to construct the satellites had been issued by the FCC.  No settlement has been reached with the satellite radio services (except as to limited "new subscription service" that XM and Sirius provide in conjunction with cable and satellite television packages where, according to the CRB website, a settlement has been reached), and a hearing was held earlier this year to take evidence on what the rates for those services should be.  As we've written before, SoundExchange has requested royalties that would reach 23% of a satellite radio operator's gross revenues.  The satellite radio case has been completed, briefs filed, and oral arguments were held in October.  A decision in the case is expected before the end of the year.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC's proposal to allow FM translators to rebroadcast the signals of AM stations as a fill-in service has been published in the Federal Register setting the dates for comment.  Comments in the proceeding will be due by January 7, 2008, with Reply Comments due on or before February 4, 2008.  As we wrote back in August (available here), the Commission's rule making proposes to allow FM translators to rebroadcast the signal of AM stations - and potentially to originate programming during those nighttime hours when a daytime-only AM station is not permitted to operate.  The proposal is to permit AM stations to operate FM translators in an area that is the lesser of a circle 25 miles from their transmitter site or within their 2 mv/m daytime service contour.  In proposing the changes in its rules, the Commission raised a number of questions on which it seeks public comment, including whether the proposal is in the public interest, whether there should be a cap on the number of translators an AM station can employ, and whether an extension beyond the AM station's 2 mv/m contour should be permitted.  Please see the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rule Making or our earlier blog entry for further information.  Comments can be filed with the Commission in paper or electronically via ECFS, and should refer to MB Docket No. 07-172.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As the Commission held its last localism hearing in Washington on Halloween night, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's views on how the FCC should insure that stations are responsive to their communities became somewhat clearer.  In his opening statement, the Chairman outlined a set of actions that could be taken by the FCC to insure more service to the public.  While emphasizing the importance of efforts to encourage new entrants into broadcast ownership, the Chairman's proposals to add new regulatory requirements, including requiring that a station be manned during all hours of operation, may well have the result of making it more difficult for any new entrant (or for existing smaller operators) to profitably operate their stations.  In addition, he has offered proposals that would seemingly require cable and satellite carriage of in-state television stations not in a system's DMA - a proposal sure to cause concern to stations in DMAs that straddle state lines.

The Chairman's statement includes the following proposals:

• Requirements for uniform filings by broadcasters quantifying their public service - presumably their news and information programming and the public service announcements that they provide
• Requiring that stations have manned main studios during all hours of operations (not just during business hours)
• Allowing flexibility for LPFM stations to be sold, but adopting new rules to insure that such stations are used for local programming, not something provided from a network or other programming source
• Providing television viewers the ability to get an in-state television stations on cable and satellite even if the county in which they reside is "home" to a DMA with stations in another state
• Capping the number of applications accepted from the 2003 FM translator filing window - which might result in the dismissal of hundreds of applications that have effectively been frozen for 4 years

Continue Reading...

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

Joining Fred Thompson and Stephen Colbert (see our stories here and here), Presidential candidate Barack Obama appeared briefly on Saturday Night Live last night and delivered that iconic line - "Live From New York, It's Saturday Night!"  But does his appearance trigger equal opportunities for television stations that aired the program and, if so, would any candidate actually request that time?  Unlike the Thompson and Colbert appearances, Obama was on broadcast television, not cable, so the question of whether equal opportunities applies to cable networks was not implicated.  And, unlike the appearances that candidates have made on talk shows (see our discussion of the broad exemption from equal opportunities given to news interview programs, here), it would be difficult to argue that the Obama appearance was in the context of a news interview program. 

But, would any candidate request the equal opportunities to get 10 or 20 seconds of equal time?  What kind of message could an opposing candidate get out in that limited amount of time (and I must admit that I didn't have my stopwatch working, so it could have been even less time) - and how much more publicity would such a request give to Obama (and Saturday Night Live)?  And such a request could raise the issue of who is a legally qualified candidate - as no registration papers for the Presidential primaries have been filed yet in most states - though the standard for legally qualified candidates for President are not as black and white as they are for other political candidates (see our discussion of this issue in our entry on the short-lived Colbert candidacy).  So, in this case, we can really stayed tuned - at 11:30 eastern time on Saturday night - to see what comes next.....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

At its Oct. 31 open meeting, the Commission adopted an Order declaring exclusive access and service clauses in video contracts between cable operators and multiple-dwelling units (MDUs) -- think apartment buildings -- to be unenforceable.  According to the FCC, such exclusive contracts can be harmful, and it expects that the rule change will result in greater choice for consumers and competition among video services providers.  The Commission launched a further proceeding to determine whether it should take similar action against exclusivity clauses entered into by Direct Broadcast Satellite television providers, private cable operators, and other multichannel video programming providers.  The further proceeding will also explore whether the Commission should prohibit other types of exclusive arrangements in the provision of video services.  It is unclear when this order will become effective.  The text of the decision has not yet been released, but once the new Order become effective, the rules will apply to existing as well as future contracts as the FCC did not provide any transition or grandfathering period for existing agreements.  Given Chairman Kevin Martin’s sense of urgency for this issue, the FCC is likely to release that text as soon as possible.  Representatives of various interest groups, including cable operators, have indicated publicly their intention to challenge the order in court.  For more details about the Commission's action please see DWT's recent bulletin. 

At the same Oct. 31^st meeting, the Commission also adopted a Second Report and Order extending a number of cable franchising rules that previously applied only to new video competitors to incumbent cable operators.  Earlier this year, the Commission had adopted rules streamlining the local cable franchising process for new video entrants (i.e., telephone companies) and clarifying that certain payments often demanded by local franchise authorities would be considered franchise fees and therefore counted against the 5 percent franchise fee cap.  By its Second Report and Order adopted this week, the Commission decided to extend many of these rules to incumbent cable operators as well.  According to Chairman Martin, extending these rules to incumbent cable operators will help level the playing field between new entrants in the video delivery market and existing operators.  For more details about the Commission’s Second Report and Order, please see DWT’s recent bulletin on the issue. 

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

The Commission’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Further NPRM”) regarding the next generation Emergency Alert System (“EAS”) has been published in the Federal Register, setting the date for Comments as December 3, 2007 and the date for Reply Comments as December 17, 2007.  This summer, the Commission adopted a Report and Order extending its EAS Rules to wireless services, and adjusting the rules to better serve the needs of persons with disabilities and non-English speakers.  The Report and Order also expanded the base of EAS participants, included state-level and geographically targeted EAS alerts, and improved coordination with state and local governments.  A copy of the FCC’s Report and Order and the Further NPRM can be obtained here. 

The Further NPRM raises additional questions regarding how the EAS rules can be adjusted to ensure that non-English speakers and persons with disabilities are reached by EAS messages.  In addition, the Further NPRM seeks input regarding whether local, county, tribal, or other state governmental entities be allowed to initiate mandatory state and local alerts, and if so, what standards or requirements be imposed in initiating an EAS message.  Finally, the rulemaking seeks comment on options for ensuring that the EAS operates as designed in an emergency, and posits several options for measuring performance.  Comments can be filed with the Commission in paper or electronically via ECFS, and should refer to EB Docket No. 04-296. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This afternoon the Commission announced that it will hold its sixth and final public hearing on media ownership issues in Seattle, Washington on Friday, November 9, 2007.  The hearing will be held from 4 to 11 PM at the Town Hall in Seattle, and will conclude the Commission's tour around the country to gather information on media ownership to assist it in reworking its media ownership and cross-ownership rules.  A copy of today's public notice is available here.  More importantly, the timing of this final public hearing seems consistent with Chairman Martin's publicly announced target of wrapping up the Commission's reconsideration of the multiple ownership rules by the end of the year. 

The Chairman apparently remains undeterred by congressional calls to slow the rule making process down.  Yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee announced that it would hold a hearing on media ownership on Tuesday November 6th, and today the House Energy & Commerce Committee has followed suit by announcing that it will hold its own hearing on the issue on December 6th.  While these hearings may put more pressure on the Commission to refrain from enacting new rules this year, by concluding its ownership tour next week, the Commission appears to still be aiming for a December action on the issue.  And according to at least one news article, the Chairman is aiming to publicly outline his media-ownership proposals by November 13th, in theory to advance those proposals before a vote at the next FCC Open Meeting tentatively set for December 18th.  Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link