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

Since the election of President Obama and the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the fears of the return of the Fairness Doctrine have been highlighted on talk radio, online, by emails and in conversations throughout the broadcast industry.  Even though President Obama had stated that he was not in favor of its return, and even liberal commentators have gone so far as to make fun of conservatives for suggesting that there might be an attempt to bring it back (see our post on Keith Olbermann lambasting George Will for making such a suggestion).  Yet this week the doctrine was back into the national discussion, coming up in a press conference with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (who joked it off without dismissing the rumors) and in a speech by FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell.  What's all the fuss about anyway?

To really understand the debate, it's important to understand what the Fairness Doctrine is and what it is not.  We've seen many politicians referring to the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule in the same sentence, as if they are part and parcel of the same thing. In fact, they are different issues.  Essentially, the Fairness Doctrine simply required that stations provide balanced coverage of controversial issues of public importance.  The Fairness Doctrine never required "equal time" in the sense of strict equality for each side of an issue on a minute for minute basis.  In talk programs and news coverage, a station just had to make sure that both points of view were presented in such a way that the listener would get exposure to them.  How that was done was in a station's discretion, and the FCC intervened in only the most egregious cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In these challenging economic times, it seems like almost every day we see a notice that a broadcast station has gone silent while the owner evaluates what to do with the facility.  This seems particularly common among AM stations - many of which have significant operating costs and, in recent times, often minimal revenues.  The DTV transition deadline (whenever that may be) may also result in a number of TV stations that don't finish their DTV buildout in time being forced to go dark.  While these times may call for these economic measures to cut costs to preserve the operations of other stations that are bringing in revenue, broadcasters must remember that there are specific steps that must be taken at the FCC to avoid fines or other problems down the road.

One of the first issues to be addressed is the requirement that the FCC be informed of the fact that a station has gone silent.  Once a station has ceased operations for 10 days, a notice must be filed with the the FCC providing notification that the station is not operational.  If the station remains silent for 30 days, specific permission, in the form of a request for Special Temporary Authority to remain silent, must be sought from the FCC.  The rules refer to reasons beyond the control of the licensee as providing justification for the station being off the air.   Traditionally, the FCC has wanted a licensee to demonstrate that there has been a technical issue that has kept the station off the air.  The Commission was reluctant to accept financial concerns as providing justification for the station being silent - especially if there was no clear plan to sell the station or to promptly return it to the air.  Perhaps the current economic climate may cause the FCC to be more understanding - at least for some period of time.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Senate has reportedly once again approved the extension of the digital television transition date from February 17 to June 12 (see Press Release from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison here).  This approval was necessary as the bill being considered by the House of Representatives is slightly different than the one passed by the Senate on Monday.  Now - it's back to the House, which failed yesterday to pass that bill by a 2/3 vote (see our post here).  Under the expedited process that was being used, the failure to get a 2/3 vote meant that the legislation did not pass.  The legislation now must got through the normal consideration process in the House, being first approved by committee, then voted on by the full House - with only a majority needed to approve the measure.  The House is going to be out of session tomorrow through Monday, so the committee that now needs to consider the bill could review it next Tuesday, and then it could be voted on by the full House on Wednesday. So if all goes as planned, there could be an extension approved next week.  If the House process somehow gets held up, the President and the FCC cannot act on any extension without action by Congress, as the February 17 date is written into law and can only be changed by a new law.  Given that the transition is only 3 weeks away, and the extension of the transition is still not a certainty, what is a television station to do?

Initially, stations should proceed as if the February 17th deadline will stick as, for now, it is the law. So keep running all the required crawls, snipes and tickers promoting the upcoming termination of analog television.  If an extension is passed, these announcements will only have caused more people to get ready for a transition that will occur sooner or later. But the extension will also allow stations to opt to transition before the new June deadline, and cease their analog operations early.  How do these stations proceed?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Earlier this week, we wrote about the apparent compromise in the Senate between Republicans and Democrats that would seemingly allow the Digital Television conversion deadline to be delayed from the current date of February 17 that stations have been warning consumers about for years, pushing that date back until June 12.  That compromise legislation passed the Senate on a unanimous vote on Monday, and was considered in the House of Representatives today.  The matter was considered by the House on their "suspension calender" - meaning that it was for legislation not deemed overly controversial that could be passed outside of the normal process of going through consideration by a committee before being voted on by the House.  As such, it needed two-thirds approval of the House to pass.  The vote on the proposed delay was 258 in favor, 168 opposed but, as it did not receive the required two-thirds vote, the bill did not pass.  For the most part, Republicans voted against the bill, and Democrats in favor.

Is this the end of the extension?  No one knows for sure.  The House could still consider the matter under its normal rules, which would require quick consideration by a committee and another House vote - which would only require a majority approval.  But, as the House bill is slightly different than the Senate version, it appears that the Senate would then have to vote once again on the revised bill - probably using an expedited process where only one Senator could block the consideration of the matter.  So television stations are left in confusion as to whether the February 17 deadline will hold, and just what an extension will require  for station operations - with less than 3 weeks to go before this current conversion deadline.  Keep watching for the latest in this very interesting process. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The oral argument on the Webcasting appeal of the March 2007 Copyright Royalty Board decision setting Internet radio sound recording royalty rates for 2006-2010 has now been set for March 19.  So, if no settlement under the Webcaster Settlement Act (about which we wrote here) is reached before the February 15 deadline set out in that act, the case will go on to the argument, though apparently without NPR, which benefits from the settlement that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has reached with SoundExchange.  Even with a settlement with all of the webcasters, SoundExchange is still being challenged by Royalty Logic, which wants to be an alternative collection agency for music royalties, so the case will probably go forward.  Royalty Logic is the party which raised the issue of whether the Copyright Royalty Board was properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, an issue that looks to invalidate the entire CRB decision.  Even thought the Court's argument will be held in March, a final decision will likely not be released for several months after the argument.

The royalty case that resulted in the much lower royalties for Sirius XM is also scheduled for argument in March, the week after the webcasters case. That decision, about which we wrote here, was decided under the 801(b) standard, which takes into account not only the perceived economic value of the music (the "willing buyer, willing seller" standard used in the webcasting case), but also factors involving the public's interest in receiving music, and the impact on the industry that the royalties will have.  If these cases both go forward, after hearing them in short order, the US Court of Appeals will become the center of the digital music royalty world - at least for a short period of time.  Watch for more as these cases develop.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Last week, the FCC issued several fines to noncommercial broadcasters who had underwriting announcements that sounded too commercial.  In these decisions, the Commission found that the stations had broadcast promotional announcements for commercial businesses - and those announcements did not conform to the FCC's rules requiring that announcements acknowledging contributions to noncommercial stations cannot contain qualitative claims about the sponsor, nor can they contain "calls to action" suggesting that listeners patronize the sponsor.  These cases also raised an interesting issue in that the promotional announcements that exceeded FCC limits were not in programming produced by the station, but instead in programs produced by outside parties who received the compensation that led to the announcement.  The FCC found that there was liability for the spots that were too promotional even though the station itself had received no compensation for the airing of that spot.

The rules for underwriting announcements on noncommercial stations (including Low Power FM stations) limit these announcements to ones that identify sponsors, but do not overtly promote their businesses.   Underwriting announcements can identify the sponsor, say what the business of the sponsor is, and give a location (seemingly including a website address).  But the announcements cannot do anything that would specifically encourage patronage of the sponsor's business.  They cannot contain a "call to action" (e.g. they cannot say "visit Joe's hardware on Main Street" or "Call Mary's Insurance Company today").  They cannot contain any qualitative statements about the sponsors products or services (e.g. they cannot say "delicious food", "the best service", or "a friendly and knowledgeable staff" ).  The underwriting announcements cannot contain price information about products sold by a sponsor.  In one of the cases decided this week, the Commission also stated that the announcements cannot be too long, as that in and of itself makes the spot seem overly promotional and was more than was necessary to identify the sponsor and the business that the sponsor was in.  The spot that was criticized was approximately 60 seconds in length. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This week, an agreement by Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the ranking minority member on the Senate Commerce Committee, to an extension of the DTV transition deadline from February 17 until June 12, was announced.  The delay has been requested so that issues about the distribution of the $40 government coupons to consumers to ease their purchase of converters to allow analog TVs to pick up digital signals so that they will continue to work after the transition date can be resolved; and so that there can be more targeted information about the transition delivered to groups that many feel may not have received the message about the transition. But Congressional Republicans have thus far blocked attempts by the Obama administration to delay the transition, so this agreement by Senator Hutchinson is viewed as a sign that the extension may very well be approved in the near term.  As the transition deadline is only weeks away, if Congress is going to act, it needs to do so immediately, or the effect of any delay will be negligible as the transition will have, for all practical purposes, already occurred.

Most broadcast stations have made plans for the transition - ordering the equipment, scheduling tower crews, coordinating the changes in frequencies with other stations in the same region that may be necessary to accommodate the digital operations.  In some cases, stations have already ceasing their analog broadcasting so that the new equipment necessary to accomplish the transition can be installed, or because these stations will be operating digitally on their analog frequency and have had to allow a tower crew or other engineering support to conduct the work necessary to allow the digital operations on the final channel to occur before the February deadline dates.  Given the limited number of such crews, not all of these final changes could happen on a single date, so stations have been changing to all digital operations now as the final date approaches.  Without Congressional action very soon, the transition will have, for the most part, already occurred.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On Thursday, the Obama administration appointed FCC Commissioner Michael Copps to be the Acting FCC Chairman until the administration selects its permanent Chairman, and that person is confirmed by the Senate.  As we've written, the rumors are that the permanent Chair will be Julius Genachowski, a former classmate of the President.  But, as far as we know (and according to the White House website's list of appointments made so far), that appointment has not yet been formally made and sent to the Senate Commerce Committee for the initiation of hearings on the qualifications of the nominee.  Commissioner Copps is the most senior of the remaining three Commissioners (Democrat Jonathan Adelstein and Republican Robert McDowell being the other two remaining Commissioners), and has been an outspoken advocate of more stringent regulation of the public interest performance of broadcasters (see, for instance, our posts here and here).  What will his appointment as interim FCC chairman mean for broadcasters?

Initially, it would seem reasonable to assume that the Acting Chair will be principally occupied with the DTV transition, as least for the next few weeks, and perhaps longer if the pending legislation to delay the transition deadline until June 12 is adopted.  It would also seem reasonable to assume that the Commission, at least for the short term, will not be tackling major regulatory initiatives (like the localism proceeding), until the permanent FCC Chair has taken office.  One of the initial Executive Orders that was issued by the Obama administration was to freeze the actions of administrative executive agencies until the political appointments made by the administration have been confirmed and taken their places, so that the new administration is not saddled by regulations that don't fit with its overall political agenda.  While many in DC believe that this order does not apply to an "independent agency" like the FCC (which technically does not report to the administration, but instead to Congress), it would be reasonable to assume that the spirit of the order would be followed by the FCC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced that he will be leaving the Commission on Tuesday as the new President is inaugurated, and thus will not be present at the FCC to set any last minute policy for the DTV transition.  In fact, if Martin had decided to stay for the end of the transition, he might well have had to stick around for a while, as there are bills making their way through Congress to delay the February 17 deadline for the transition to digital television.  Senator Rockefeller has introduced a bill that would extend the deadline to June 12, which Senate Republicans blocked last week, though it will reportedly be reintroduced this week.  At the same time, the three remaining Commissioners have all released letters that indicate that there are significant transition problems that need to be resolved before the transition deadline.  While there are those who wonder if the delay will really solve the problems that may exist - the movement is in the direction of a delay.

The letters from the Commissioners are most interesting.  First came a letter from Commissioner McDowell, not directed to Congress, but instead to Chairman Martin, publicly asking for information about the FCC's DTV phone bank to answer questions from consumers about the transition.  According to the McDowell letter, he was unable to get information about the status of upgrades to the system to handle the expected influx of calls at the end of the transition.  McDowell also complained about calls that were not answered at all, or which had long wait times, when consumers called - wait times that often resulted in connections with a voicemail system.  And he raised questions about the failure of the phonebank to be open on weekends.  It has now been announced that IBM has been hired to man the phonebank, perhaps answering some of the questions Commissioner McDowell raised in his letter.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The term "Super Bowl" is a trademark owned by the National Football League, and it is protected very aggressively. What does that mean?  The biggest no-no of all is to use the term "Super Bowl" in any advertising or promotional announcements that are not sanctioned by the NFL.  This prohibition includes sweepstakes and contests as well.  Advertisers pay high licensing fees to the NFL for the right to use the term "Super Bowl" in their advertising.  You will almost certainly hear from the NFL's attorneys if you use the term in advertising without explicit authorization from the NFL.  So no "Super Bowl sales" in your ads - and don't refer to your station as the "Super Bowl Authority" in your promotional statements.  These restrictions explain why you often hear it referred to as "The Big Game."  But this restriction does not mean you cannot utter the words on air under any circumstances. 

There is a court-created trademark concept known as "nominative fair use."  Under this concept, trademarks can be used when necessary under certain conditions.  First, the mark must not be readily identifiable in any other way.  For example, you do not have to refer to the Pittsburgh Steelers as "the professional football team from Pittsburgh."  Secondly, you can only use the mark to the extent necessary to identify it.  Repeated gratuitous use would cross the line - for instance if you repeatedly state that your station is "the place to hear everything about the Super Bowl."  And third, you cannot do anything to suggest a false connection or sponsorship arrangement.   What does this really mean?  It means that DJs can use the term "Super Bowl" editorially in discussing the game on air (but not in a way to imply that the station has a connection to the game, or not in a repeated way analogous to a station slogan or positioning statement).  It means that news stories about the game can refer to the "Super Bowl."  The NFL will not consider such uses to be trademark infringement so long as the use is reasonable.  In fact, from an editorial perspective, the NFL appreciates some hype about the game to attract viewers and general consumer interest in the game.

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

The FCC last week issued a decision that should make Buyers think twice in determining how sales of broadcast stations are concluded - especially in the days of $325,000 potential fines for indecency violations.  In the case decided last week, the Commission concluded that the licensee of a broadcast station was liable for fines for violations of the public inspection file rules - even though the violations occurred prior to a "long-form" FCC Form 315 application for transfer of control of the station.  In other words, the shareholder who owned the company and been responsible for the violations had, after the violations, sold the stock to new innocent parties who, under the decision, have to bear the costs of the violations.  The Commission did concede that, had the station been sold to a new company via an FCC Form 314 assignment of license, then the fine would not have been borne by the station buyers.

Thus, to fully protect themselves from any prior FCC violations, a sale would have to be conducted through assigning the FCC licenses to a new corporation, rather than by buying the stock of the current licensee.  However, there are often many business reasons that a sale is more advantageous as a transfer of the stock of the company, rather than through a sale of the assets to a new company.  For instance, Sellers of stock in C Corporations often have tax incentives for the sale of stock (e.g. to avoid depreciation recapture).  Thus Sellers often push for the sale of stock rather than the assignment of the license to a new company.  Buyers also have reasons for wanting a stock sale.  For instance, the old company may have certain contractual rights - to tower site leases on advantageous terms, to program contracts or to lines of credit - that are not assignable to a new company, and which buyers may find economically beneficial.  These and other business planning reasons may dictate that the sale be a stock sale, not an asset sale.  But buyers should beware and carefully do careful due diligence to insure that no hidden FCC liability may await when they purchase the stock of a company holding a broadcast station license. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and SoundExchange have reached an agreement on the Internet radio royalty rates applicable to stations funded by CPB.  While the actual agreement has not yet been made public, a summary has been released.  The deal will cover 450 public radio webcasters including CPB supported stations, NPR, NPR members, National Federation of Community Broadcasters members, American Public Media, the Public Radio Exchange, and Public Radio International stations.  All are covered by a flat fee payment of $1.85 million - apparently covering the full 5 years of the current royalty period, 2006-2010.  This deal is permitted as a result of the Webcaster Settlement Act (about which we wrote here), and will substitute for the rates decided by the Copyright Royalty Board back in 2007.

 The deal also requires that NPR drop its appeal of the CRB's 2007 decision which is currently pending before the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC (see summary here and here), though that appeal will continue on issues raised by the other parties to the case unless they, too, reach a settlement.  CPB is also required to report to SoundExchange on the music used by its members.  In some reports, the deal is described as being based on "consumption" of music, and implies that, if music use by covered stations increases, then the royalties will increase.  It is not clear if this increase means that there will be an adjustment to the one time payment made by CPB, or if the increase will simply lead to adjustments in future royalty periods. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC's has published in the Federal Register certain aspects of its November decision on closed captioning - most notably the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking if a broadcaster's multicast streams should each count as a separate "channel" potentially exempt from closed captioning requirements if that channel doesn't bring in more than $3 million in annual revenue.  Seemingly, each of the multicast streams are what one would conventionally think of as a channel, yet the Commission has asked for comments on this issue - comments to be filed by February 12.  If the Commission was to determine that a multicast stream was not a separate channel, the captioning obligations would apply if the station, in all of its cumulative operations, had revenues of $3 million.   This could impose significant costs on innovative programming done on these multicast streams.  The November decision also clarified certain other rules, and adopted certain processes for dealing with complaints about captioning issues (processes yet effective as they have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act).  Davis Wright Tremaine has published a memo providing more information about the effect of the Federal Register publication.  Our summary of the November decision itself is available here

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The press was abuzz yesterday with the news that Julius Genachowski is apparently the pick of the Obama Administration for the position of FCC Chairman.  Mr. Genachowski was at the FCC during the Reed Hundt Administration, and has since worked in the private sector in the telecommunications industry, including work with Barry Diller and running a DC-based venture capital fund.  From the positive reactions that the appointment has received from all quarters, the choice would seem to be a great one.  But, in looking at some of the reactions, you have to question whether everyone has to be reading what they want to see into the new Commission.  For instance, while the NAB has praised the choice of Genachowski (stating  that he "has a keen intellect, a passion for public service, and a deep understanding of the important role that free and local broadcasting plays in American life"), so too did media-reform organization Free Press ("This moment calls for bold and immediate steps to spur competition, foster innovation and breathe new life into our communications sector. With his unique blend of business and governmental experience, Genachowski promises to provide the strong leadership we need.")  What will this appointment really mean for broadcasters?

In short - who knows?  When Kevin Martin was appointed Chairman of the FCC, few would have imagined that a former communications attorney, a person deeply involved in the Bush campaign, and a former staffer of FCC Commissioner Harold Furtchgott-Roth (perhaps the most free market Commissioner ever) would have supported sustained, wide-reaching inquiries into the underbrush of FCC regulation - e.g. localism, embedded advertising, indecency.  So we can't really know what a Chairman will do until he does it.  The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both suggest that the new chairman will be focused on Internet issues, and may be less interested in indecency - but who knows?

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

Just after Christmas, the FCC gave a number of broadcasters the equivalent of coal in their stocking - fining six different licensees for violations of the FCC's EEO rules.  The fines issued that day ranged between $7,000 and $20,000, and included penalties issued to major broadcasting companies including Fox and Cumulus.  Also included were fines against Urban Radio in New York City and Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting - demonstrating that the FCC's EEO rules, adopted in late 2002 after previous rules were declared unconstitutional essentially on "reverse discrimination" grounds (as they encouraged broadcasters to make hiring decisions not based on qualifications but instead based on race or gender), are truly race and gender blind.  It would be logical to assume that Urban Radio and Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting both had significant numbers of minority-group members on their staffs but, as they could not demonstrate that they had complied with the new rules requirements to reach out to all groups in their communities (as opposed to just racial or gender focused groups), they were assessed fines.  Reporting conditions, requiring that the broadcasters regularly file reports with the FCC so that their EEO efforts can be monitored, were also imposed.  All of the decisions can be found on the FCC's Daily Digest for that day, here.

The basis of all of these fines was the failure of the licensees to be able to demonstrate that they had "widely disseminated" information about all of their job openings.  The core of the 2002 EEO regulations was the requirement that licensees broadly disseminate notice about their job openings in such a way so as reach all of the significant groups within the community that the station serves.  The Commission was not looking to specifically force minority hiring, but instead to push for hiring from diverse sources.  The Commission wanted to push broadcasters to use recruitment sources beyond the existing broadcast community - so that hiring was not simply done by word of mouth or from within other professional broadcast circles.   Thus, the rules require that broadcasters use recruitment sources that reach out to various groups within their community and document those efforts. 

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

A day after the Obama transition team wrote to Congress suggesting that the DTV transition now scheduled for February 17 be delayed, there are indications that a bandwagon effect is beginning to develop in favor of such a delay.  Broadcasting and Cable magazine's website reports that the four major TV networks have indicated that they support a delay in the transition if it will better serve their viewers, and that Senator Rockefeller has started drafting legislation to delay the transition.  The New York Times featured a guest editorial from two former FCC Chairmen - Republican Michael Powell and Democrat William Kennard - supporting the delay (and mentioning one of the same issues that we had mentioned the day before - the need for education of consumers about the need for different antennas to receive the digital signal).  But others are not so sure that a delay makes sense.

While the NY Times editorial may make it look like the delay request is a bipartisan effort, there are other indications that there is at least some evidence of partisan differences beginning to develop.  The NY Times today quotes Joe Barton, a senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as opposing a change.  Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is quoted by the Associated Press as saying that the delay will confuse consumers, while Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein is quoted in the same article as being sympathetic to the postponement.  While the political groups are taking sides, many in industry seem reluctant to delay the transition date. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

What a difference a few days makes.  At the beginning of this week, it was full speed ahead for the February 17 termination of analog television.  Then NTIA announced that it was out of money to pay for DTV coupons to assist the public in buying converter boxes so that analog TV sets will continue to work after the transition.  This action, in turn, caused Consumers Union to ask Congress for a delay in the transition, resulting in Congressman Markey's office suggesting that the DTV transition might need to be delayed (as we wrote yesterday).  Today, the other shoe dropped as the Obama transition team formally wrote to Congress asking for a delay of the termination of analog television.  That letter leaves everyone asking - will Congress respond?  If so, what are the ramifications?

The NAB responded with a press release talking about how broadcasters are still prepared to meet the deadline, and how the deadline has focused all parties (TV stations, electronics manufacturers, cable and satellite companies) on doing what they need to do in order to be ready for the transition.  But the Obama team's call for the postponement does not seem to be focused on the readiness of program providers to accomplish the switch, but instead on the readiness of viewers to deal with the new digital environment, especially given the lack of coupons for last minute shoppers still waiting to buy their converter boxes.  As we've written before, many in Washington are worried about the political ramifications of the transition - especially if millions of people wake up on February 18 and can't watch the Today Show or Good Morning America.  And while that is a legitimate concern, one wonders if it will ever be possible to prepare everyone for the transition deadline.  Sure, if the deadline is postpone 4 or 5 months, there will be a marginal increase in people who are ready, but there will still be stragglers.  Catching up to them all may never happen until they are hit with the reality of their analog sets not working on the day after the transition, whenever that day may be.  If so, shouldn't someone at least consider the costs that a delay will impose on broadcasters? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Several press reports were issued today suggesting that there is at least some consideration in Congress of delaying the DTV transition now scheduled to be completed on February 17.  The consideration stems from the announcement that the NTIA (the National Telecommunications and Information Administration) had run out of money to issue the $40 coupons to consumers to subsidize the purchase of converters that allow analog television sets that receive over-the-air signals to process digital signals so that these sets can continue in operation after February 17.  While NTIA has not actually spent all the money Congress has allotted for the converter boxes, as almost half of the coupons that have been issued have not been redeemed, NTIA is required to withhold the money until the coupons have either been spent or expired (the coupons are good for only 90 days).  Thus, while some people may still be able to receive the coupons in the future after currently issued coupons expire without having been used, it may be too late for consumers to use those coupons to buy a converter box before the February deadline.  Fearing that some groups will be disenfranchised by the loss of television service, the Consumers Union sent a letter to Congress (here) asking that the transition be delayed until coupons can be made available to all who need them, and reports indicate that Congressman Markey's office (who heads the House Subcommittee that deals with broadcast issues) is considering that request.

Could a delay really occur?  While broadcasters have been diligently working to meet the deadline, a delay could allow implementation of some of the last minute technical fixes for areas that may lose service because of the transition (as we suggested here in our discussion of the recently approved analog nightlight, Digital low power translators, and distributed transmission service that were recently permitted).  Some may oppose the delay but, with the nightlight already delaying the availability of the open spectrum for 30 days, a brief delay really would not make all that much difference.  Those planning on using the vacated spectrum within the TV band for "white spaces" devices cannot do so yet because of additional regulatory issues that must be addressed (see our post here).  The principal parties who would be disadvantaged by the delay would be those who bought at an FCC auction the spectrum being cleared by the move of TV stations currently operating on channels 52 and above into lower channels in the DTV 'core".  Would Congress be willing to put the new services planned by these spectrum buyers on ice while the last-minute DTV issues get ironed out?  The next few days may provide an answer as we see if these rumors are just a case of last minute nerves, or if they represent a real attempt to provide time to smooth out the digital transition. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

2009 - a new year, and a whole new cycle of regulatory requirements.  We wrote last week about the potential for changes in regulations that may be forthcoming but, like death and taxes, there are certain regulatory dates each year that broadcasters need to note and certain deadlines that must be met.  Those dates are set out in our advisory - Important Dates For Broadcasters in 2009 - a calendar of the year's regulatory filings.  Dates include the deadlines for routine FCC filings - ownership reports, children's television reports, quarterly issues programs lists, EEO Public File reports, etc.  Dates for the payment of royalties for Internet radio streaming operations are also included, as well as the lowest unit rate windows for upcoming gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.  And the all-important DTV deadlines are also listed.  So, to keep track of your regulatory obligations, check out our broadcaster's calendar, here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Copyright Royalty Board today published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the start of its next proceeding to set the royalties to be paid by Internet radio operators for the performance rights to use "sound recordings" (a particular recording of a song as performed by a particular performer) pursuant to the statutory royalty.  As we've written extensively on this blog, the statutory royalty allows an Internet radio station to use any publicly released recording of a song without the permission of the copyright owner (usually the record company) or the artist who is recorded, as long as the station's owner pays the royalty - currently collected by SoundExchange.  In 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board set the royalties for 2006-2010, a decision which prompted much controversy and is still under appeal.  In the Notice released today, the CRB set February 4 as the deadline for filing a Petition to Participate in the proceeding to set the royalties for the next 5 year period.

The 2006-2010 royalties are currently the subject of negotiations as the parties to the last proceeding attempt to come to a voluntary settlement to set royalties that are different than those established by the CRB decision.  The Webcasting Settlement Act (which we summarized here) gives webcasters until February 15 to reach an agreement as to rates that would become an alternative to the rates that the CRB established.  The Act also permits parties to reach deals that are available not only for the 2006-2010 period, but also allows the deals to cover the period from 2011-2016.  Thus, theoretically, webcasters could all reach agreements with SoundExchange to establish rates that cover the next royalty period, obviating the need for the proceeding of which the CRB just gave notice.  But, as is so often the case, those settlements may not be reached (if they are) until the last minute - so parties may need to file their Petitions to Participate before they know whether a settlement has been achieved.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Digital Fill-In Translators, to provide television service in areas where a television station's digital signal does not reach locations that were covered by its analog operations (a proposal we summarized here) was published in the Federal Register today, setting comment dates on this proposal.  Comments are due on January 12, and Replies on January 22.  As the Commission has already published instructions for filing for temporary authority to operate these stations, broadcasters who are interested in the final rules that may be adopted should look to file comments on these matters before the January 12 deadline.  This is another proceeding that is being rushed through the Commission in anticipation of the February 17 end of the digital television transition.

The analog nightlight proceeding is on an even faster track, with comments due on Monday (see our summary of that proceeding here). The Commission has just released a tentative agenda for its January 15 meeting, where the only item it will consider (other than reports from the Commission's various Bureau Chiefs) will be the analog nightlight proposal.  This is likely to be Chairman Martin's last meeting as chair of the FCC.  In light of the Congressional mandate to complete this proceeding by January 15, the Commission will have received comments and replies and digested them into a decision - all in the space of  20 days from the release of its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - with the Christmas and New Years holidays intervening!  If anything, this shows two things - that the FCC can move rapidly if it has to, and that the DTV transition is the one and only real priority on the full Commission's agenda right now. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Come the New Year, we all engage in speculation about what’s ahead in our chosen fields, so it’s time for us to look into our crystal ball to try to discern what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2009. With each new year, a new set of regulatory issues face the broadcaster from the powers-that-be in Washington. But this year, with a new Presidential administration, new chairs of the Congressional committees that regulate broadcasters, and with a new FCC on the way, the potential regulatory challenges may cause the broadcaster to look at the new year with more trepidation than usual. In a year when the digital television transition finally becomes a reality, and with a troubled economy and no election or Olympic dollars to ease the downturn, who wants to deal with new regulatory obstacles? Yet, there are potential changes that could affect virtually all phases of the broadcast operations for both radio and television stations – technical, programming, sales, and even the use of music – all of which may have a direct impact on a station’s bottom line that can’t be ignored. 

With the digital conversion, one would think that television broadcasters have all the technical issues that they need for 2009. But the FCC’s recent adoption of its “White Spaces” order, authorizing the operation of unlicensed wireless devices on the TV channels, insures that there will be other issues to watch. The White Spaces decision will likely be appealed. While the appeal is going on, the FCC will have to work on the details of the order’s implementation, including approving operators of the database that is supposed to list all the stations that the new wireless devices will have to protect, as well as “type accepting” the devices themselves, essentially certifying that the devices can do what their backers claim – knowing where they are through the use of geolocation technology, “sniffing” out signals to protect, and communicating with the database to avoid interference with local television, land mobile radio, and wireless microphone signals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link