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

Today's announcement from John McCain that he is suspending his Presidential campaign to work on issues dealing with the economic bailout, and that he will not participate in Friday's scheduled Presidential debate if the bailout package has not been enacted, raises an interesting question about the application of the FCC's equal opportunities rules.  If Barack Obama were to appear at the debate and answer questions, and that appearance was televised, would the stations that carried the debates later be subject to a claim for equal opportunities by the McCain campaign?  Under FCC precedent, the answer would be "yes."  Debates are exempt from equal opportunities because they constitute on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event - one of the exemptions from equal opportunities specified in the Communications Act.  However, as we've written before, debates were not always considered exempt and, at one time, if all candidates (including all minor party candidates) were not included in the debate, any excluded candidate could demand equal time.  Thus, debates rarely occurred.  In the 1970s, the FCC loosened the rules to permit debates to be covered as news events, even if minor party candidates were excluded, without triggering equal opportunities obligations - if there were reasonable, objective criteria used to determine which candidates could participate.  However, in doing so, the FCC concluded that, if only one candidate showed up for a debate, it was not a true debate, and thus not exempt from the equal opportunities doctrine.

What would this mean if a station was to cover a debate where Obama showed and McCain did not?  If the McCain campaign were to timely request equal opportunities, stations would have to provide to McCain time equal to the amount of time that Obama appeared on screen, and McCain could do anything with that time that he wanted - he would not have to answer questions from the debate moderator.  Thus, traditionally, if only one candidate shows up for a scheduled debate that is supposed to be broadcast, the debate (or at least the broadcast) is canceled.

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

Tomorrow's FCC meeting was to consider the proposal to allow AM stations to use FM translators on a permanent basis (see our post here).  However, it is not going to happen - the FCC released a Public Notice today removing that item from the agenda for tomorrow's meeting.  While a number of other items were also withdrawn from the agenda, most of them were decisions on specific cases which are not routinely decided at open meetings, and most of these matters were decided on circulation (i.e. voted on by the Commissioners without a meeting).  Two more general items, one dealing with a simplification of AM proof of performance procedures and another with requests for reconsideration of the FCC's noncommercial comparative standards, have also been decided on circulation (and we will report on these decisions when the decisions are released).  But the item on FM translators for AM stations was pulled from the agenda, and has apparently not been decided by the FCC.

Rumors that this item would be pulled circulated last week at the NAB Radio Show.  We have always expressed concerns that this item would be held up by pressure put on the FCC by LPFM advocates who fear more demand for FM translators from AM stations will make it harder for LPFM applicants to find open channels.  We have no idea if this is in fact the reason for the deletion of the item from tomorrow's agenda, and will have to wait to see when the matter reappears for final consideration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Today, the National Music Publishers Association ("NMPA"), DiMA, the RIAA and other music publishing groups issued a press release announcing a settlement of certain aspects of the current Copyright Royalty Board proceeding to determine the royalties due under Section 115 of the Copyright Act for the mechanical royalty for the reproduction and distribution of the musical work (i.e. the composition - the words and music of a song).  According to the Press Release issued by the parties, this agreement covers interactive streaming and limited-time downloads, setting a royalty of 10.5% of revenue, less any amounts due for performance royalties (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, which also reimburse composers of music).  While many press reports (at least some of which have already been pulled) have concluded that this is a settlement of the Internet Radio royalties proceeding - that is wrong.  The Internet radio royalty proceeding involves Section 114, not Section 115, of the Copyright Act.  Section 114 deals with a royalty paid to the performers, not the composers.  Section 114 compensates performers and the copyright holders in the performance for the public performance of their works, not for the mechanical royalty for reproduction and distribution covered by Section 115.  And Section 114 covers non-interactive streaming - where users cannot dictate the songs that they want to hear - unlike the services, on-demand streams and limited time downloads, involved in this settlement which allow users to select the songs that they want to hear.  So don't believe what you read - the Internet radio royalties are still very much a subject of dispute, and services like Pandora are not yet saved by any sort of settlement. 

According to the press release, the one benefit to Internet radio under this agreement is that the parties conclude that there is no royalty due to the music publishers for any copies made in the transmission of non-interactive streaming.  The Copyright Office recently began a proceeding to ask if such royalties were due (about which we wrote here).  So, even  were the Copyright Office to determine that there was a Digital Phonorecord Delivery (a "DPD") made during the Internet radio streaming process, at least for the length of this agreement (assuming that it is approved by the Copyright Royalty Board), no royalty will be assessed.  We will write more about this settlement once we have seen the full terms - but wanted to post this notice to alert readers that, contrary to press reports, the Internet Radio proceeding has not been settled. 

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

 As the digital television transition continues to progress, the FCC has been pursuing not only broadcasters who have been slow in building out their digital facilities, but also consumer electronic manufacturers who have not done enough to facilitate the transition. In a letter released this week, Chairman Martin has by letter urged consumer electronics retailers to stock inexpensive converter boxes that will pick up digital signals and allow analog television sets to broadcast those signals, keeping those sets from becoming obsolete. Also, the FCC recently entered into a consent decree agreeing to a fine for Sling Media for not including a digital television tuner in some of its equipment, reminding all consumer electronics manufacturers, including those who install them as an adjunct to their technology, of the need to include such tuners in their equipment.

The issue of the digital converter boxes is an interesting one. When NTIA started issuing coupons to consumers to subsidize their transition to digital, it was hoped that the $40 coupons that consumers would receive would come close to covering the entire cost of the converter box necessary to keep an analog set operational. In fact, in most cases, the boxes have cost more than $40, requiring the consumer to pay at least some of the cost of the box. What has been particularly frustrating has been the announcement that Echostar, the satellite television provider of the Dish Network, had manufactured a highly rated box that would be available at $40, and would also include the ability to “pass through” analog signals – to continue to receive analog as well as digital signals – a particularly important property in markets where there are LPTV or TV translator stations that will continue to operate in analog after the February 17, 2009 deadline for the digital conversion of full-power television stations (see our post here on that issue). However, as the Chairman's letter makes clear, that box and boxes like it are not available in most consumer electronics stores. Thus, the Commission has urged retailers to stock such devices in these final months before the digital cut-off so that no one is left behind. 

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

Failing to meet the obligations set out under the law for required sponsorship identification on Federal political ads could, theoretically, cost candidates significant amounts of money – if stations decide to hold the candidates to the letter of the law. Under the terms of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”), Federal candidates airing television commercials that refer to a competing candidate must specifically state, in the candidate’s own voice, that he or she has approved the ad, while a full-screen image of the candidate appears on the screen. In addition, the name of the sponsoring candidate’s campaign committee must appear in text on the screen for at least 4 seconds at 4 percent of screen height, with sufficient color contrast to make the text readable. If the proper identification is not contained in an ad, the candidates forfeit their right to lowest unit rates for the entire pre-election period (45 days before a primary or 60 days before an election), even with respect to future ads that comply with the rules. In recent days, representatives of Democratic Congressional candidates have reportedly filed complaints that argue that Republican competitors have not complied with the rules in several cases, as their written disclosures did not air for the full four seconds. The challengers argue that television stations must take away LUR for these candidates. While the statute say that the candidates forfeit their rights to such rates, the law is unclear as to whether stations are obligated to deny that rate to candidates after the right has been forfeited – and these cases could resolve this issue.

Television stations undeniably have the power to charge full rates to candidates whose ads have not complied with the requirements of the campaign statute. However, many stations have been reluctant to do so for minor infractions such as the ones identified in this complaint. Why wouldn’t television stations want to charge more money? For several reasons. First, denying one candidate lowest unit rates will no doubt trigger a fly-specking of every commercial by the competitor who filed the complaint against the first candidate, to try to trigger a forfeiture of the second candidate's right to Lowest Unit Rates, and adjudicating such complaints will no doubt make the station’s political sales process much more difficult and costly to administer. In addition, there is the question of whether, for a minor violation, a station really wants to give the other candidate a political advantage – especially if the candidate who gets charged more more wins the election and gets to vote on laws that may effect business in the future. But can stations legally continue to charge the lowest unit rate even when a candidate has not complied with the legal requirements for sponsorship identification?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Broadcasting and Cable magazine today reported that the FCC is looking to back off some of the requirements for the "enhanced disclosure" of television broadcaster's public interest programming (see our summary of the new requirements of FCC Form 355, here).  B&C reports that the FCC may lessen or at least better explain some of its new reporting requirements to try to avoid having these rules being struck down by the Courts as being arbitrary and capricious, or to avoid further proceedings which might be ordered by the OMB were it to determine that the rules violated the Paperwork Reduction Act.   We have speculated as to the likelihood that these rules, requiring substantial new burdens on television broadcasters, would have difficulty surviving OMB review.  How could these burdensome rules, which the FCC has effectively stated have no regulatory purpose as the Commission has no requirements for any percentages of any particular type of programming (see our post here) possibly be justified under a Paperwork Reduction Act analysis - much more paper for no specific regulatory purpose simply does not seem to provide any justification for the new rules?  A Paperwork Reduction Act analysis focuses on the burden on small entities.  The new enhanced disclosure rules do not exempt small broadcasters.  B&C suggests that an exemption for noncommercial stations may be one of the changes to be made by the FCC - certainly a welcome change but hardly enough to help small market commercial TV operators who will be hardest hit by these rules. 

We would certainly not be surprised by the FCC lessening the burden that they have imposed on television broadcasters.  We have seen Commission staffers in public forums express surprise at the descriptions of the burdens that these rules place on television broadcasters.  And we have noted the slow pace with which these rules have been rolled out - having been adopted in December, the text of the decision coming out in January, and they still are not effective.  We will all have to watch closely to see if this press report is accurate and the FCC in fact reconsiders its Enhanced Disclosure requirements.  Stay tuned. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

It's been a week since Wilmington, North Carolina became the first television market in the country to have virtually all of its television stations convert to digital - ceasing their analog operations.  The FCC, NAB and local stations all concentrated great resources in Wilmington in order to ensure that the transition was smooth and, while most observers believe that disruption was minimal, there are some who remain concerned about the results of the Wilmington experiment, and whether it can be replicated in other television markets.  While the FCC ramps up its efforts to promote the digital television transition around the country, one Commissioner has suggested several other steps that should be taken (including leaving an analog lifeline for those people who don't get the message), and Congress is set to weigh in on the issues over the next two weeks.  All in all, the push is on for the February 17, 2009 transition to digital.

One of the most thought provoking commentaries on the transition comes from Harry Jessell, editor of TV Newsday.  In a commentary published last Friday, Jessell computes that the complaints in Wilmington amounted to about 5% of the television households in that market.  If that pattern was to be repeated in all markets around the country, Jessell computes that there would be about 1.7 million homes that will miss the transition and be without TV service on February 18.  Jessell further figures that this is a best case number, as all of the publicity showered on Wilmington will not be available in the remainder of the country, and there will likely be more technical problems in other markets with more irregular terrain than Wilmington (which is mostly flat coastal plain) and where TV towers are in different locations.  Jessell suggests several steps - including staggered cut-off dates to avoid overloading national DTV hotlines, more education on antenna issues (one of the major issues in Wilmington), and more "soft-tests" (stations ceasing analog operations for limited periods to see if their viewers are ready for the transition). It is a commentary worth reading.

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

Each election season brings new issues for broadcasters. In recent years, broadcasters are more and more frequently dealing with requests for political uses of the a station’s website. For the most part, unlike a broadcast station that is subject to the full panoply of the FCC’s political rules, those rules largely don’t apply to station websites (some FEC rules, will not be discussed here, may apply to websites). About the only informal pronouncement to come out of the FCC on the use of a station website is that, if the website is sold to one candidate as part of a package with broadcast spot time, then the same offer should be made to competitors of the candidate. This is not an application of FCC’s the rules to the Internet, but instead just a restatement of a long-standing FCC policy that, if one advertiser gets extra benefits that come with the purchase of ad time, and those benefits would be of value to a candidate, they should also be offered to the candidate, and that equal opportunities demands that all candidates for the same office be treated alike.

While the freedom from reasonable access, lowest unit rates, and equal time may seem like a boon to broadcasters, that freedom comes with a price. For instance, the “no censorship rule,” which forbids a station from editing the content of a candidate’s spot or rejecting that spot based on its content (unless that spot violates a Federal felony statute), does not apply to Internet spots. Because candidate spots broadcast on a station cannot be censored, the station has no liability for the content of those spots. So the station is immune for libel and slander, or copyright violations, or other sources of potential civil liability for the content of a candidate’s broadcast spots. But since these spots can be censored or rejected on the station’s website, a station could have theoretical liability for the content of the Internet spot even though the broadcaster could run the exact same spot on the air without fear of any liability. For instance, just recently, according to the Los Angeles Times, CBS asked You Tube to remove a McCain spot attacking Senator Obama as the spot used a copyrighted clip of a Katie Couric commentary without permission. Had that spot been running on a broadcast station, the station would have been forbidden from pulling the spot (and would have no liability for the copyright violation).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a recent article in Silicon Valley Insider, TargetSpot's CEO, Doug Perlson, suggests that the financial savior of Internet Radio might be payola - taking money from record companies or artists to play their songs.  Putting aside any issues of the financial benefits of such a plan, and the creative and aesthetic issues that pay for play may raise, and since this is a blog written by lawyers, we'll deal with the legal implications.  And as lawyers, we're forced to play the spoilsport.  As set forth below, such a scheme can be done legally (just as it could be on terrestrial radio with the proper disclosures).  But, while there has been no legal enforcement of such activities, careful Internet radio operators would best be advised to be careful about just taking the money and playing songs, but instead should make some disclosure of the nature of the service that they are providing.

The payola statute, 47 USC Section 508, applies to radio stations and their employees, so by its terms it does not apply to Internet radio (at least to the extent that Internet Radio is not transmitted by radio waves - we'll ignore questions of whether Internet radio transmitted by wi-fi, WiMax or cellular technology might be considered a "radio" service for purposes of this statute).  But that does not end the inquiry.  Note that neither the prosecutions brought by Eliot Spitzer in New York state a few years ago nor the prosecution of legendary disc jockey Alan Fried in the 1950s were brought under the payola statute.  Instead, both were based on state law commercial bribery statutes on the theory that improper payments were being received for a commercial advantage.  Such statutes are in no way limited to radio, but can apply to any business.  Thus, Internet radio stations would need to be concerned.

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

A recent proposal to increase the power levels at which HD Radio stations operate - to improve coverage and, perhaps more importantly, building penetration so that people can receive digital channels inside buildings - has been the subject of a cautionary study released by National Public Radio.  That study was summarized in a story in the NPR magazine Current (an executive summary can be found here, and the entire 280 page study is here).  The study agrees that an increase in power suggested by the recent proposal would increase HD Radio coverage and significantly increase building penetration, but it would do so only at the cost of causing interference to existing analog stations - in some cases significant interference.  Such interference would be especially troublesome in receivers in cars, where radio broadcasters have long concentrated some of their most important programming to capture people in the place where competing entertainment options are most limited.   

The NPR study does suggest that there could be ways to limit the interference using directional antennas or lessening power but using digital boosters that could be tuned slightly off-center on their frequencies to protect adjacent channel stations.  HD radio operates on the sides of a station's analog channel (thus its original name - "IBOC" for In-Band On-Channel), thus potentially causing interference to adjacent channel stations.  By suppressing the signal on the side of the signal nearest to the adjacent channel station and sending the digital bits out of the other side of the channel, some of this interference could be minimized.  Yet systems capable of such protections have not yet been fully developed.

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

When we first started this blog over two years ago, one of our first posts to receive a comment (proving that at least someone was actually reading what we wrote) dealt with the FCC's proposal to allow AM stations to be rebroadcast on FM translators, a change of the Commission's long-standing prohibition on using FM translators for anything other than rebroadcasting FM stations.  While some commenters expected this proposal to be rushed through the FCC, we cautioned that the process might not be so fast, as there were parties who would be opposed to more uses of FM translators, including LPFM advocates who fear that more use of FM translators will preclude opportunities for new LPFM stations.  Well, it looks like the long wait for a decision to allow the use of translators for AM stations may soon be over, as the matter is listed as a possible topic for consideration at the FCC's September 25 meeting.  This is only a list of possible agenda items, and even were it to make it to the agenda, it can always be removed.  But even being listed as a possible item for consideration does seem to be a positive development indicating that the FCC's analysis of the matter has neared completion. 

As we have written, the FCC has already allowed some AM stations to begin broadcasts on FM translators pursuant to Special Temporary Authority.  But any STA is by its nature temporary, and can be revoked at any time.  AM broadcasters would welcome the certainty that any permanent decision will bring.  Of course, applications for new FM translators can only be filed during a window for such filings, and as the last translator window is still tied up in questions about how many applications by each party should be processed, AM licensees looking for FM translators must find existing translators (or construction permits from the last window) in order to take advantage of any rule change that the Commission may make.  Nevertheless, any change will immediately provide an important benefit to at least some AM broadcasters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

More than 8 years ago, a group of television station owners (the Network Affiliated Stations Alliance or "NASA") who operated stations affiliated with the major television networks filed a request with the FCC, petitioning the Commission to rule that certain provisions in network affiliation agreements that limited the ability of stations to preempt network programming should be prohibited.  While some of these issues were raised in the Commission's localism proceeding, the parties have now reached an agreement to resolve many of the issues.  The Commission last week released an order approving that agreement and clarifying some of the legal issues as to what provisions can be contained in network affiliation agreements.  These clarifications not only help to clarify the clauses that can be contained in affiliation agreements, but also give broadcasters insights as to what kinds of provisions can be included in any agreement by which one party provides programming to a broadcast station licensee, including agreements such as LMAs.

 The Commission's Order sets out standards governing the network-station relationship that insure that the licensee maintains control over programming and other basic operational decisions of their station.  From this basic principal, the following specifics were adopted:

• Station licensees have an unfettered right to reject network programming that they believe is contrary to the public interest, "unsatisfactory" or "unsuitable
• Stations can preempt network programming when the licensee thinks there is some other programming which is of greater national or local importance.
• If a preemption is done for one of these reasons, the affiliation agreement cannot impose monetary or non-monetary penalties or limit the amount of such preemptions
• Affiliation agreements cannot give networks the right to "option" time in the future unless they make a commitment to fill that time with programming.   This is important in a multichannel digital context, as it prevents networks from tying up time on a second or third channel that they might or might not use.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC recently issued a Notice of Inquiry, asking if it should consider mandating that XM Sirius receivers also be able to receive HD Radio or to play material from other audio sources.  This proceeding was promised as part of the FCC's approval of the XM-Sirius merger, as a potential way of ensuring that competition in the audio entertainment marketplace remained robust after the merger.  While the Commission required that XM Sirius allow manufacturers to build receivers that could incorporate HD Radio or other audio entertainment technologies (e.g. MP3 player, Internet connectivity, etc), it did not require that any receiver contain such technology.  This proceeding asks if any sort of requirement along these lines should be adopted.  It also seeks information generally about the audio entertainment marketplace.

Specific questions posed by the FCC in this proceeding include:

• Would a mandate promote lower prices and more choices for consumers of audio entertainment?
• Should it be expected that audio devices with multiple audio entertainment capabilities will be developed without an FCC mandate?
• Would an XM Sirius radio with HD Radio capability promote dissemination of state-level EAS messages?
• How well has HD Radio been developing on its own?
• Would multi-function devices facilitate the development of HD Radio?
• Are such devices necessary for the development of HD Radio?
• What other public interest benefits, if any, would result from such a combinations?
• What technological issues would there be in multifunction devices (e.g. manufacturing cost, battery life, size and weight, interference, etc.)?
• If a requirement was adopted, how long would any required phase-in period need to be?
• Should any requirement cover all radios, or just certain types (e.g. in-car, portables, home receivers, etc)?
• Does the FCC have the authority to adopt any such mandate?

That last issue, the FCC statutory authority to adopt rules in this area, is a general question considered in several other recent FCC proceedings (for instance, see out post here).  Just because the FCC might think that something is a good idea does not mean that it can adopt rules in an area.  Rules requiring that equipment manufacturers take certain actions have run into problems in the Court of Appeals in the recent past as the FCC has only limited jurisdiction over such manufacturers, so any mandate here will need careful justification or perhaps even a specific statutory mandate.

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

Last week, the FCC released a Public Notice asking for comments on whether it should begin a Section 403 investigation into the use of Arbitron's Portable People Meter ("PPM").  A coalition of broadcast groups, the "PPM Coalition," principally comprised of broadcasters providing service to minority communities, sought the investigation as a way of delaying the implementation of the PPM technology next month in a number of large broadcast markets.  In their request, which can be found on the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council website, the PPM Coalition argues that the investigation is justified based on the Commission's objectives (and various administrative and legislative mandates) to improve minority ownership in broadcasting.  The PPM Coalition contends that methodology problems in PPM implementation result in artificially low ratings for minority owned stations.  These parties argue that, if the system is implemented, a number of minority-programmed stations will disappear.  Arbitron has argued that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to regulate ratings services (who are obviously not FCC licensees) or the methodology that they use.  Comments on the request for an investigatory hearing are due on September 24, and replies on October 6 (two days before the PPM system is to be implemented in eight markets).

Section 403 of the Communications Act gives the Federal Communications Commission the power to conduct investigations of any complaint of any violation of its rules or of provisions of the Communications Act, or to explore any other matter relating to the provisions of the Act.  Such investigations are often conducted before an Administrative Law Judge, but can be conducted before the Commission itself, and allow the FCC to use full discovery techniques (e.g. document production requests and depositions) and to conduct an evidenciary hearing.  In the past, the process was used much more frequently.  It has been used both to investigate specific complaints of possible misconduct by individual licensees, and to conduct broader inquiries into business practices in a regulated industry to decide if FCC regulation was necessary.  For instance, in the 1960s, there was an investigation into network practices to determine if those practices required FCC action to regulate the network-affiliate relationship.  In recent years, the power has been rarely used, and when used has tended to relate to specific allegations of misconduct to determine if the FCC should bring some sort of enforcement action against a regulated entity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Commission this week released an Order exempting certain small cable systems from the requirement that, after the February 2009 digital transition, for a three year period, cable systems carry both an analog version of a broadcast television station's signal plus the station's high definition signal.  This dual carriage requirement was imposed so that the cable system would ensure that a version of the station's signal was available to all subscribers to the system, and so that those who had high definition sets could receive the television signal without "material degradation" of its signal, as required by FCC rules.  As some small systems either did not have the bandwidth to transmit an HDTV signal or could not meet the costs necessary for such carriage, the Commission decided to grant these systems an exemption.  Specifics of the FCC decision and the exemption, and on the background of this ruling, can be found in Davis Wright Tremaine's Advisory on this order. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In two recent actions, the FCC has evidenced its concern about the EEO performance of its licensees.  Last week, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with DIRECTV, by which DIRECTV paid the FCC $150,000 in lieu of a fine for the company's failure to abide by the FCC's EEO rules by not preparing an Annual EEO Public File Report or submitting a Form 396-C for several years.  The FCC also released a Public Notice announcing changes in the racial categories to be used in FCC Form 395 - the Form breaking down the employees of a broadcaster or cable company by race and gender.  That form has not been filed for years, as its use was prohibited when the FCC EEO rules were declared unconstitutional.  In adopting new EEO rules in 2003, the FCC promised to return the form to use, but has been wrestling with the issue of whether or not the form should be publicly available or whether it should simply used internally by the FCC to collect data about industry employment trends. The adoption of new definitions for the racial categories specified on the form may signal the return of this form.  Together, these actions demonstrate that the FCC has not lessened its concern about EEO in any fashion.

The DIRECTV fine was the result of the company's failure to prepare Annual EEO Public File Reports or to submit 2003 and 2004 Form 396-C reports - reports that are more detailed versions of the Form 396 filed by broadcasters with their license renewals and the Form 397 Mid-Term Employment report.  The Form 396-C requires that multichannel video providers detail their hiring in the previous year and the outreach efforts made to fill job vacancies, the supplemental efforts that the employment unit has made to educate its community about job openings, and other details on the company's employment practices.  After review of the company's efforts, the Commission not only faulted the company for its paperwork failures, but also determined that the company had not engaged in sufficient outreach for all of its employment openings - relying solely on the Internet and on word-of-mouth recruiting for many job openings, which the Commission found to be insufficient.  Broadcasters need to make sure that they do not forget to file their required EEO forms, prepare their annual EEO Annual Public File Report, and engage in wide dissemination of information about all job openings.  Details of the FCC's EEO rules, policies and requirements applicable to broadcasters can be found in Davis Wright Tremaine's EEO Advisory.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC has released a Public Notice, warning regulated entities that there are websites that pretend to be the site on which FCC regulatory fees are to be electronically filed.  These so-called "phishing" sites are apparently out to obtain from broadcasters and other entities regulated by the FCC information about their financial accounts.  The Public Notice reminds broadcasters that the site on which fees are to be paid is www.fcc.gov/feefiler.  If you see some other URL address, beware.  Make sure that you are in fact on the FCC's website before revealing any private financial information.  More on the FCC filing fees can be found in the Davis Wright Tremaine Advisory on the fees, and in our prior posts, here and here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link