FCC Form 355 - A Form Without a Reason?
The FCC Form 355 requiring "enhanced disclosure" by television stations was a frequent topic of discussion at this week's NAB Convention in Las Vegas. That form will require that television broadcasters report significant, detailed information about their programming, providing very detailed reports of the percentage of programming that they devote to news, public affairs, election programming, local programming, PSAs, independently produced programs and various other program categories, as well as specifics of each program that fits into these categories (see our detailed description of the requirements here). Obviously, all broadcasters were concerned about how they would deal with the expense and time necessary to complete the forms, and the potential for complaints about the programming that such reports will generate. At legal sessions by the American Bar Association Forum on Communications Law and the Federal Communications Bar Association, held in connection with the NAB Convention, it became very clear to me that the obligations imposed by these new rules are obligations adopted for absolutely no reason, as the Commission has not adopted any rules mandating specific amounts of the types of programming reported on the form. In fact, one of the Commissioner's legal assistants confirmed that, unless and until the FCC adopts such specific programming requirements, the Commission's staff will not need to spend any time processing these forms. Thus, if the form goes into effect, broadcasters will be forced to keep these records, and expend significant amounts of staff time and station resources necessary to complete the forms, for essentially no purpose.
Of course, public interest advocates will argue that the forms will allow the Commission to assess the station's operation in the public interest, and will allow the public to complain about failures of stations to serve local needs. But, as in a recent license renewal case we wrote about here, the Commission rejected a Petition to Deny against a station based on its alleged failure to do much local public affairs programming as, without specific quantitative program requirements, the Commission cannot punish a station for not doing specific amounts of particular programming. If the Commission adheres to this precedent, it will not be able to fine stations for the information that they put on the Form 355, but only for not filing it or not completing it accurately. Thus, unless the Commission adopts specific programming requirements, the form will be nothing more than a paperwork trap for the unwary or overburdened broadcaster. And, as is usually the case with such obligations, the burden will fall hardest on the small broadcaster who does not the staff and resources to devote to otherwise unnecessary paperwork.
We are certainly not advocating the adoption of such programming requirements. In fact, we believe that such standards would be constitutionally suspect and would end up forcing all stations into cookie-cutter images of each other - at a time when the plethora of media choices now available demands that each station adopt a targeted identity catering to the needs of a unique and specific audience. And in tailoring its service to specific audiences, a station cannot be constrained by specific program percentages, as each audience may have the same needs - some will not sit still for traditional news and public affairs programming, while others will demand it. Forcing all stations to provide the same program choices simply leaves some audiences unserved. While this may be most evident in radio, television will adapt too as there are more and more outlets for video programming. TV will have to seek out the niches at which it will direct its programming. Mandating a specific percentage of news, public affairs, election coverage, religious programming or anything else simply will not serve the public's interest in receiving wide and diverse programming choices. For the individual consumer, having the programming that he or she wants when they want it is more important than insuring that some percentage of that station's programming is made up of local news.
As one broadcaster observed to me, these rules may have made some sense when broadcasters were all mass market stations, providing "full service" programming to their communities. That was a time when there were few media outlets in each market, and to maximize audience, each station had to try to serve all elements of the community. Now, as broadcast stations compete against programming coming from cable, satellite, Internet, mobile and other platforms, there really are few if any full-service stations, particularly in large broadcast markets. Even broadcasters themselves, as they adapt to the multicast opportunities that are presented by digital transmission, will provide more competition in a marketplace, and hasten the need for focusing on the superserving the needs of particular audiences.
For now, the NAB is challenging in Court the implementation of the Form 355. How the Commission will justify its retreat from the deregulation of the 1980s when it admits that this form currently serves no regulatory purpose is hard to imagine. In the interim, comments on the potential for the adoption of specific quantitative programming obligations, as part of the Localism proceeding (see our summary here), are due on April 28. Broadcasters should file comments to make sure that the Commission understands the current competitive marketplace, and how their programming will be constrained if they were all forced to adhere to the same arbitrarily set programming obligations for various categories of various types of programming. It is a crucial proceeding that could determine the future of the broadcast industry - be sure to participate.
"Even broadcasters themselves, as they adapt to the multicast opportunities that are presented by digital transmission, will provide more competition in a marketplace, and hasten the need for focusing on the superserving the needs of particular audiences."
Not quite: multicasting has yet to demonstrate programming diversity (many stations are running derivations of their primary formats), and the risk of increased interference between stations running hybrid analog/digital signals may actually *decrease* program diversity available in any given market.
Multicasting certinaly is not a panacea for access or diversity: if listeners ultimately receive multiple program streams, but are limited by interference and other technical considerations to the number of stations they can receive (i.e., more in the analog world, less in the HD world), then they are, in effect, being limited in the number of stations they can receive - even if the stations they can receive multicast, the centralization of programming in this regard is dangerous. This is the antithesis of "competition in the marketplace."
I know this is mostly off-topic from the point of your original post, but generalized assertions about the net gains of broadcasters adopting HD technology are most definitely suspect at this point in time.
You are correct - it is a bit off the point of the post. But not entirely. While it is true that some broadcasters are just doing a variation of their programming on their multicast channel, others are doing entirely new formats - in the radio world, some are aimed at very narrow audiences - electronica, blues, bluegrass, etc. that serve new audiences from the main stations. Even on TV, there are all news or all weather or, in some smaller markets, a Spanish-language format where none had previously existed, on multicast channels - something different from the main channel, and serving a unique audience, even where the channel does, to some degree, repurpose content from the main channel.
The point of the post was that FCC regulations should not impede the development of these channels, which clearly serve a public good. In the past, we have seen the Commission's 3 hour per week per channel children's television mandate cause the elimination or modification of some all news or all weather formats - even though such formats clearly serve the public. Any new rules the FCC adopts should not similarly impede present or future development of main channel or subchannel formats.