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

The FCC's Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implementing changes resulting from the Congressional delay in the DTV transition deadline and seeking comment on a number of proposed rule changes has been published in the Federal Register.  Comments on the Commission's proposed rules, including changes to the transition procedures that would restrict the ability of television stations to terminate the analog operations, must be filed by Wednesday  March 4, 2009.  The Commission's rule making is on a fast track as it must be completed by March 13th.  Accordingly, interested parties should prepare and file comments quickly.  Comments can be filed electronically through the FCC's ECFS database found here.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In the last two weeks, we have seen Capitol Hill rallies by the Free Radio Alliance, opposing what they term the “performance tax” on radio, and yesterday by the Music First Coalition, trying to persuade Congress to adopt a performance royalty on the use of sound recordings for the over-the-air signal of broadcast stations. We’ve written about the theories as to why a performance royalty on sound recordings should or should not be paid by broadcasters, but one question that now seems to be gaining more significance is the most practical of all questions – if a performance royalty is adopted, how would broadcasters pay for it?

 The recording industry and some Congressional supporters have argued in the past that, if the royalty was adopted, stations could simply raise their advertising rates to get the money to pay for the royalty. While we’ve always questioned that assumption (as, if broadcasters could get more money for their advertising spots, why wouldn’t they be doing so now simply to maximize revenues?), that question is even harder to answer in today’s radio environment. With the current recession, radio is reporting sales declines of as much as 20% from the prior year. Layoffs are hitting stations in almost every market. In this environment, it is difficult to imagine how any significant royalty could be paid by broadcasters without eating into their fundamental ability to serve the public – and perhaps to threaten the very existence of many music-intensive stations. And the structure of the royalty, as proposed in the pending legislation, makes the question of affordability even harder to address.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The week before last, we wrote that FCC's filing fees for applications submitted to the Commission would be going up on February 18, and included a link to the FCC Fee Filing Guide for the new fees.  Well, shortly before the supposed effective date, the Filing Guide disappeared from the FCC website, and the new fees have not been programmed into the FCC's electronic filing system.  So those new fees have not become effective yet - though we would expect that they will be soon.  Stay tuned for more information. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC late Friday released an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing a number of issues which arose as a result of the Congressional delay in the DTV transition deadline from February 17 until June 12.  In many cases, the actions taken in the Order are ministerial - e.g. changing the expiration dates on digital construction permits from February to June.  But there were also a number of substantive issues addressed by the order - including the public education requirements for the remainder of the transition and the potential for delaying any further terminations of analog service until at least April, and subjecting any planned termination of analog service before June 12 to additional scrutiny to determine if that termination would serve the public interest.   This is despite what many have termed a relatively uneventful termination of analog service on February 17 by over 400 stations nationwide.  Comments on this change in the transition procedures are to be filed on an expedited basis - within 5 days of the publication of this order in the Federal Register.

The delay of the early termination of service is likely to cause the most controversy, as Senate Republicans backed the transition delay only after specifically including in the legislation language that seemingly permitted such transitions under the rules that were in place at the time that the legislation was adopted (see our post here).  This would seemingly have permitted stations to terminate analog service within 90 days of the June 12 deadline, provided they had given their listeners at least 30 days notice of their plans.  A number of stations have started to provide that notice, planning a termination in March. But the Commission has tentatively concluded that it can amend the process for termination, and has set the date of March 17 for a notice to be filed at the FCC by all stations that want to terminate analog service before June 12.  As the Commission plans to continue to require 30 days public notice of the termination, and as they won't allow any termination decision to become official until the March 17 filing, the earliest a station can terminate analog service under this proposal (absent a technical issue or other extreme circumstance) would be April 16. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a decision released this week, the FCC granted the application of an FM station for license renewal, denying petitions filed by two former employees who contended that the station had violated a number of FCC rules.  After the FCC inspected the station and found only a few minor issues with the station's public file, the license renewal was granted.  The FCC action was itself routine, but what it points out is that stations need to be very careful in their dealings with employees, especially employees who are about to leave their service.  This is not the first FCC case that was brought based on allegations made by former employees, and it will no doubt not be the last.  Putting aside the merits of the claims made in the complaints, the station had to endure a delayed renewal and no doubt significant legal expenses in bringing the matter to a resolution - which perhaps may have been avoided had there been better relationships with the former employees .  A few weeks ago, we wrote about the need to handle lay-offs and reductions in force in a manner that is least likely to cause legal problems for the station, and pointed to a memo from Davis Wright Tremaine's employment law practice that highlighted some considerations to keep in mind.  That memo is probably worth review once again in these troubling economic times where layoffs have become the norm at many broadcast stations.

The case also highlights the need for the broadcaster to be absolutely candid and forthright in its dealings with the FCC and the public.  A broadcaster may be tempted to fudge on certifications on FCC applications as to issues like whether it timely placed documents into the public file, or whether it did all the EEO outreach that was required for all of its job openings.  But, beyond the simple fact that you should tell the truth, there are usually employees that know what's happening at a station.  And, one day, those employees could become "disgruntled" (funny that no one ever talks about a "gruntled" employee), and seemingly innocent certifications that ignored some minor transgression can be blown up into a major issue - claims of misrepresentation or false certification which can cost broadcasters their licenses.  The admission of a missed deadline, incomplete public file or similar issue will at worst bring a fine, while the false certification can lead to much more.  Be candid, treat employees well - and stay out of trouble.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC has an open proceeding pending to allow AM stations to use FM translators.  As we have written, while this proceeding continues, the Commission is allowing AM stations to rebroadcast their signals on FM translators on under Special Temporary Authority.  In a case decided today, the FCC made clear that this is only permitted where the translator already is an authorized facility.  In this case, an applicant requested that the FCC grant it temporary authority to operate an FM translator on a frequency where no authorization has been granted or even applied for.  The Commission's staff found that it had no authority to authorize such an AM station to put its signal on the FM band unless there was an authorized translator that could be used, or until the full Commission decided differently in the pending proceeding and allows AM stations to apply for new translators.

While this seems like a fairly straightforward decision, there is one interesting issue noted in the decision.  The applicant claimed that the FCC could authorize an FM translator on a temporary basis if the public interest supports it, citing a case in Nevada where the FCC authorized the temporary operation of a Low Power FM station for which no authorization had been filed.  We wrote about that case here, and the press suggestions that this application was granted at the request of a Nevada Senator even though it was not within the normal FCC processes.  In the case released today, the Commission's staff denied that the Nevada case provided any benefits to the applicant - stating that the Nevada decision was an unpublished decision with no precedential value.  Perhaps the decision also reflects the change of administration - to one that promises to be more observant of established processes and to make decisions based on reasoned decision-making.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today issued two fines to stations who violated the FCC's rule against airing phone calls for which permission had not been received before the call was either taped for broadcast or aired live.  We've written about other fines for the violation of this rule, Section 73.1206, many times (see here, here, and here).  What was interesting about the new cases is that they made clear that a station needs to get permission to record or broadcast the phone call even before the person at the other end of the line says "hello."  

In one case, the station was broadcasting using a tape delay.  The station placed a call to a local restaurant and, when the person at the other end of the line said hello, the station DJ informed the restaurant employee that he was being broadcast and asked if that was OK.  The person responded "yep."  But he changed his mind later in the call.  The station claimed that, had the person not given permission, the tape delay would have allowed the call to be dumped but, as permission was given, the station continued to run with the conversation on the air. The FCC found that insufficient, as permission had not been received prior to the person saying hello.  The second case was much more straightforward - a wake up call by the station to a randomly selected phone number.  While the station immediately informed the person who answered the phone that the call was on the air - that did not happen until the recipient of the call had already said hello.  In the first case, the fine was $6000 - in the second, $3200.

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

Many television stations are making the conversion to all-digital operations today (see our post here for details).  These stations should remember that the DTV Consumer Education efforts that are currently in place apply to both the analog channel and the primary digital channel, and thus will continue after the conversion. Based on the current rules, the obligation to continue the education efforts extend through March 31st. So even if stations shut off their analog signal today, the digital station should continue airing the 16 PSAs per week, 16 crawls per week, the 30 minute long format program, etc., on their primary digital channel. Similarly, under the current rules, the stations all still need to file a Form 388 on April 10th reporting on the First Quarter efforts.  Our memo detailing these efforts can be found here. 

Presumably, the FCC will be providing further guidance on the consumer education rules, but given that the existing rules contemplate that DTV stations will continue these general consumer education efforts past the hard date transition, with the transition deadline now extended through June 12, these rules may well be changed to require that the education efforts extend beyond the current quarter through June or perhaps beyond.  So watch for further information.
 

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

While all the details are not out yet, the trade press has been filled with announcements this evening reporting that SoundExchange and the National Association of Broadcasters have reached a deal on Internet Radio Royalties.  This deal will apparently settle the royalty dispute between broadcasters and SoundExchange for royalties covering 2006-2010 which arose from the 2007 Copyright Royalty Board decision, as well as the upcoming proceeding for the royalties for 2011-2015.  According to the press reports, the royalties are slightly reduced from those decided by the CRB for the remainder of the current period, and continue to rise for the period 2011-2015 until they reach $.0025 per performance in 2015.  According to the press release issued by the parties, there was also an agreement between the NAB and the four major labels that would waive the limits on the use of music by broadcasters that are imposed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

These limits, referred to as the performance complement, set out requirements on how many songs from the same artist or same CD can be played within given time periods which, if not observed, can disqualify a webcast from qualifying for the statutory license.  If a webcaster cannot rely on the statutory license, it would have to negotiate with each copyright holder for the rights to use the music that it plays.  The performance complement imposed requirements including:

• No preannouncing when a song will play
• No more than 3 songs in a row by the same artist
• Not more than 4 songs by same artist in a 3 hour period
• No more than 2 songs from same CD in a row
• Identify song, artist and CD title in writing on the website as the song is being played

It will be interesting to see the details of this agreement setting out what aspects of these rules are being waived.

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

With February 17 only two days away - when all television stations had planned to be terminating their analog service until Congress passed the extension of the conversion deadline until June 12 - many stations are still planning to convert to fully digital operations on that date.  In the last few days, we have seen a flurry of FCC orders about the conversion - including one issued late Friday night modifying requirements that had previously been announced, including the requirement that stations providing analog nightlight service provide emergency information in Spanish.  As stations complained that they did not have the ability to translate their emergency information into Spanish, the FCC dropped the requirement (though still requiring information about the DTV transition to be broadcast in English and Spanish, probably assuming that Spanish-language PSAs providing the necessary information can be obtained from the NAB or other broadcast groups).  That order also officially extended all digital construction permits that would have otherwise expired on February 17, and extended the conditions that are on many of the permits prohibiting digital operations on their final digital channels until the new transition deadline - unless these stations get explicit permission from the FCC to transition early by showing that they will not cause any interference to other stations when they operate on their new digital channels.

The Commission also has been publishing lists of the stations that had intended to go all-digital by February 17 despite the extension.   First, the Commission released a Public Notice of all stations that had initially indicated that they would go silent, with a market-by-market analysis of which stations would go all-digital on February 17 (marked in red) and which would continue in analog.  After analyzing that list, the Commission issued another Public Notice, with a list of stations that could not go all-digital without submitting certifications that they would meet certain consumer education requirements after the transition - including having at least one commercial station in a market continuing to broadcast a nightlight service that not only included information about the digital transition, but also news and emergency information, for at least 60 days.  the certifications also required having a local call center for those who have questions about the transition, having a walk-in center where people can come for assistance with their digital converters, and otherwise taking steps to publicize the transition.  Stations either needed to make these certifications, provide another public interest reason why they had to terminate analog operations on February 17, or agree to continue their analog operations.

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

In three recent cases, the FCC revisited the issue of broadcast contest rules - fining stations for not following the rules that they set out for on-air contests, and reiterating that the full rules of any contest need to be aired on the station (see our previous post on this issue here).  The most recent case also made clear that a broadcast station's contests that may be primarily conducted on its web site are still subject to the FCC's rules if any mention of the contest is made on the broadcast station.  Thus, even though the contest itself may be conducted on the website, with entries being made there and prizes being first announced on the site, if the station uses its broadcast signal to direct people to the site to participate in the contest or otherwise promote it, the broadcaster must announce all of the rules on the air.

In one case, a listener called a station with what she believed to be the correct answer to a question that needed to be answered to win a prize.  The listener gave the answer, only to be asked a second unexpected question that she did not answer correctly.  The next day, she heard another listener call in, answer the original question in the same way that she did - and win the prize without ever even being asked the second question.  When the first listener complained, station employees agreed that the second question was not part of the rules, but did nothing to correct their mistake until after the listener filed her complaint with the FCC.  The Commission fined the station $4000 for failing to follow the contest rules and for failing to fully publicize all of the material terms of the contest on the air. 

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

I just finished speaking on a panel at the Radio Ink Convergence '09 conference in San Jose.  My panel was called "The Distribution Dilemma: Opportunities, Partnership and Landmines."  As the legal representative, my role was, of course, to talk about the landmines.  And one occurred to me in the middle of the panel when a representative of Ibiquity, the HD Radio people, about one of the opportunities available for the multicast channels available in that system, where an FM radio operator can, on one FM station, send out two or three different digital signals.  The particular opportunity that was discussed was the ability to bring in outside programmers to program the digital channels, specifically talking about a recent deal where a broadcaster had entered into a deal with a company that would be brokering a digital channel in major markets, and programming that station with a format directed to the Asian communities.  Broadcasters are generally familiar with the fact that, when they broker their traditional analog broadcast station to a third party, the licensee remains responsible for the content that is delivered in that brokered programming - e.g. making sure that there are no payola, indecency, lottery or other legal issues that pop up in that brokered programming.  Broadcasters need to remember that that same responsibility applies to multicast streams, whether they are on HD radio or on a multicast stream broadcast by a digital television station.  These stream are over-the-air broadcast channels subject to all FCC programming rules.

Foreign language programming has traditionally presented programming issues for broadcasters.  In the 1970s and 1980s, there were multiple cases where broadcasters actually lost licenses because there was illegal activity taking place in brokered programming.  In these cases, the programming contained illegal content and the licensee had no way to monitor the content of the programs as the licensee had no one on staff who spoke the language in which the programming was produced.  The FCC basically said that the licensee had the responsibility to be able to monitor all programming broadcast on its station - so they had abdicated their responsibility to keep the station in compliance with FCC rules by not knowing what was being said in the brokered programming.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Last week, we wrote about how the Fairness Doctrine was applied before it was declared unconstitutional by the FCC in the late 1980s. When we wrote that entry, it seemed as if the whole battle over whether or not it would be reinstated was a tempest in a teapot. Conservative commentators were fretting over the re-imposition, while liberals were complaining that the conservatives were making up issues. But what a difference a week makes.

Perhaps it is the verbal jousting that is going on between the political parties over the influence of Rush Limbaugh that has reignited the talk of the return of the Doctrine, but this week it has surprisingly been back on the front burner  – in force. Senator Debbie Stabenow from Michigan said on a radio show that the positions taken by talk radio were unfair and unbalanced and that “fairness” shouldn’t be too much to ask (listen to her on-air remarks) . When prompted by the host as to whether there would be Congressional hearings or legislation, the Senator said that it would certainly be something that Congress would consider.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Share Link

Update - February 25, 2009 - The change in fees did not become effective as planned - see our post here. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Months ago, the FCC announced that the fees paid by broadcasters (and other services) for the processing of applications and other filings would be going up.  It was only recently that the notice was published in the Federal Register, and the FCC has now announced that the new fees will go into effect on February 18.  The new fees for broadcast and cable applications can be found in the Media Bureau filing guide, found here.  Most fees will be automatically reflected in the FCC's CDBS electronic filing website when a broadcaster submits an electronic application.  But be prepared for the fees going up.

For example, common application fees include the $940 now charged for a minor technical change in a broadcast station, or for the assignment or transfer of a station.  Call sign changes cost $95, and Special Temporary Authority carries a $170 filing fee.  Ownership Reports are $60.  Look for all of the fees in the FCC's Media Bureau Application Fee Filing Guide.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Yesterday, we briefly wrote about the FCC's release of a notice summarizing the process that television stations need to follow as they transition to digital under the newly extended DTV conversion date.  In yesterday's post, we promised a more detailed memo summarizing the requirements that the FCC has set out.  That advisory is now available here.  For stations that are still planning to go completely digital, and to terminate their analog operations, on February 17, the information in the memo is very important, as notice of the station's plans to terminate must be filed on Monday, February 9, and enhanced on-air disclosures must follow the next day.  Stations planning to wait to transition at some later time between February 17 and the new June 12 deadline will also need to start new on-air announcements to educate the consumer about the new deadlines.  So read the advisory, and the FCC's public notice, and be prepared for the upcoming deadline.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

With the extension of the DTV transition deadline now passed by Congress, it's the FCC's turn to implement the extension and set the way in which television stations will deal with the new June 12 date for the termination of analog television.  To start to implement that extension, the FCC today issued a public notice setting out the procedures to be followed by stations in dealing with the new deadline.  The Public Notice allows stations that want to do so to go ahead and terminate their digital service on February 17 despite the extension, but they must file with the FCC a notice of that election by midnight on Monday, February 9.  The Notice also sets out the requirement for these stations to run a significant number of announcements between now and February 17, including an increasing number of crawls in the final week before the termination date, all to tell viewers that these stations really will be turning off their analog signals on February 17 as they have been saying that they will for the last few years.

If stations do not turn off their signals on February 17, they must keep operating in analog until at least March 14, and can only terminate after giving the FCC at least 30 days prior notice.  Education efforts about the new deadline date will also need to continue through the new deadline, and will need to be amended to reflect that deadline.  A Davis Wright Tremaine Advisory on these requirements will be published soon - but the Public Notice provides much of the necessary information that stations need to know right now.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The battle over the broadcast performance royalty has begun anew, with the introduction of legislation to impose a performance royalty for the use of sound recordings on broadcast stations.  This royalty would be in addition to the royalties paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (which go to compensate composers of music), as this royalty would be paid to the performers of the music (and the copyright holders in the recorded performance - usually the record companies).  The statement released by the sponsors of the bill cites numerous reasons for its adoption - including the facts that most other countries have such a royalty, that satellite and Internet radio have to pay the royalty, and that it will support musicians who otherwise do not get compensated for the use of their copyrighted material.  The NAB has countered with a letter from its CEO David Rehr, arguing that musicians do in fact get  compensation through the promotional value that they get from the exposure of their music on broadcast stations.  The 50 state broadcast associations also sent a resolution to Congress, taking issue with the premises of the sponsors - citing the differences in the broadcast systems of the US and that of other countries where there is a performance royalty, and arguing that broadcasting is different from the digital services who have a greater potential for substitution for the purchase of music.  What does this bill provide?

The bill introduced this year are very similar to the legislation proposed last year (which we summarized here); legislation that passed the House Judiciary Committee but never made it to the full House, nor to the Senate.  Some of the provisions of this year's version include:

• Expansion of the public performance right applicable to sound recordings from digital transmissions to any transmission
• Royalties for FCC-licensed noncommercial stations would be a flat $1000 per year
• Royalties for commercial stations making less than $1.25 million in annual gross revenues would pay a flat $5000 per year.  There is no definition of what constitutes "gross revenues," and how a per station revenue figure could be computed in situations where stations are parts of broadcast clusters
• Excludes royalties in connection with the use of music at religious services or assemblies and where the use of music is "incidental."  Incidental uses have been defined by Copyright Royalty Board regulations as being the use of "brief" portions of songs in transitions in and out of programs, or the brief use of music in news programs, or the use in the background of a commercial where the commercial is less than 60 seconds - all where an entire sound recording is not used and where the use is less than 30 seconds long
• Allows for a per program license for stations that are primarily talk
• Establishes that the rates established for sound recordings shall not have an adverse effect on the public performance right in compositions (i.e. they can't be used as justification for lowering the ASCAP, BMI and SESAC rates)
• Requires that 1% of any fees paid by a digital music service (such as a webcaster, or satellite radio operator) for the direct licensing of music by a copyright owner (usually the record company) be deposited with the American Federation of Musicians to be distributed to non-featured performers (background musicians), while the distribution of any fees to the featured performer be governed by the contract between the performer and record company
• Requires that any 50% of any fees paid by a radio station for direct licensing of music be paid to the agent for collection of fees (i.e. SoundExchange) for distribution in the same manner that the statutory license fees are distributed (45% to the featured performer, 2.5% to background musicians, and 2.5% to background vocalists)

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

The House of Representatives, after a fairly contentious debate, today passed the Bill extending the termination date for analog service by full-power TV stations, extending the Digital Television deadline until June 12.  By that date, all full-power stations will need to complete the transition to digital so that, on June 13, there will be no more analog full-power television stations.  The debate centered today on a number of issues - with Republicans arguing that the delay would cost broadcasters significant additional sums to continue to operate their analog stations, it would delay the freeing up of spectrum that will be used post-transition by first responders and for other emergency communications (as well as by new commercial digital services such as the MediaFlo service about which we have written before), and it would confuse the public and cause them to become more cynical about government deadlines.  The Democratic sponsors of the extension, on the other hand, pointed to the problems with the NTIA coupon program, which currently has requests by almost two million people for over 3 million $40 coupons on a waitlist, as the money to fund the coupon program has expired.  Sponsors also worried about other transition problems, including the FCC's call center about which even Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell expressed his concerns.  The concerns about the immediate transition carried the day - the DTV Delay Act passing by a vote of 264 to 158.

As the Senate had already approved the legislation passed by the House today, it's on to the President.  President Obama is expected to sign the legislation almost immediately.  Then, it will be up to the FCC to figure out how to implement the requirements of the Act.  The act allows television stations to convert to full digital operations before the June deadline.  Many stations have been filing anticipatory notices with the FCC, informing the Commission that they will be converting, no matter what, on February 17.  Whether the Commission will accept those notices, and details as to how broadcaster's consumer education requirements will be modified, and other revisions to the transition rules are expected to be addressed by the FCC as soon as the President signs the bill.  So keep watching for those details.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As we wrote on Friday, the Senate has passed the Bill that would extend from February 17 to June 12 the deadline for full-power television stations to transition to digital operations.  This leaves the House of Representatives to once again consider the matter - supposedly in committee on Tuesday and perhaps by vote of the full House as early as Wednesday.  In preparation for that consideration, there have been conflicting letters released by Congressmen supporting the bill and those who are oppose.  The opponents claim that the ability of TV stations to transition before the end date, an option that was important to Senate Republicans who unanamously supported the extension of the transition date, may not in reality exist.  The supporters of the bill point to the over 1.85 million people who are on the waiting list for the $40 coupons to be applied against the cost of DTV converters to allow analog televisions to receive digital signals after the transition.  What do these letters add to the debate?

The Republican Congressmen leading the charge against the delay of the transition suggest in their letter that the ability of TV stations to transition before an extended June 12 DTV deadline is largely illusory, as they imply that most stations cannot transition until the last day because of interference concerns.  They have asked the FCC to immediately provide information about how many stations would be precluded from a transition until June 12 if the date is extended.  From our experience, while there are some stations that need to delay their DTV transition until some other station has changed channels, we would be surprised if most stations are precluded from doing so.  Many stations are simply going to continue on the channels on which they are currently operating their DTV transitional facilities.  Thus, if they are already operating their DTV stations on their post-transition channel, by definition they are not suffering from any preclusive interference issues.  And the vast majority of the remaining stations are planning to operate after the transition on their current analog channel which itself, in most cases, is free from interference as the analog operation would have in most cases precluded other stations on interfering channels from operating in too close a proximity to the area served by the station.   We are aware of many stations ready to transition early even if the deadline is extended until June 12, and we would think that these stations had reviewed their situations before deciding to do so, and would have been aware of interference concerns in preparation for their February 17 changeover.  In some cases they may have coordinated an early change with any station that would have presented an interference issue.  Thus, we would be surprised if the FCC report prepared for these Congressmen finds a great number of stations that will be forced to wait until June 12 to do their digital conversion even if they are inclined to make the change early.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

While it seems like we just finished the election season, it seems like there is always an election somewhere.  We are still getting calls about municipal and other state and local elections that are underway.  And broadcasters need to remember that these elections, like the Federal elections that we've just been through, are subject to the FCC's equal time (or "equal opportunities") rule.  The requirement that lowest unit rates be applied in the 45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election also apply to these elections.  "Reasonable access," however, does not apply to state and local candidates - meaning that stations can refuse to take advertising for state and local elections (unlike for Federal elections where candidates must be given the right to buy spots in all classes and dayparts on a station), as long as all candidates for the same office are treated in the same way. So stations can take ads for State Senate candidates, and refuse to take ads for city council, or restrict those ads to overnight hours, as long as all candidates who are running against each other are treated in the same way.

One issue that arises surprisingly often is the issue of the station employee who runs for local office.  An employee who appears on the air, and who decides to become a candidate for public office, will give rise to a station obligation to give equal opportunities to other candidates for that same office - free time equal to the amount of time that the employee's recognizable voice or likeness appeared on the air.  While a station can take the employee off the air to avoid obligations for equal opportunities, there are other options for a station.  See our post here on some of those options.

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