September 2009

In a Public Notice issued yesterday, the FCC announced that it would do a series of open "workshops" in connection with its review of the broadcast multiple ownership rules – the rules that restrict the number of radio or television stations which one party can own and which restrict the cross-ownership of radio and TV stations and newspapers in the same market.  The FCC is poised to begin its quadrennial review of the ownership rules in 2010.  The open proceedings just announced (without details of how many workshops will be held) will be used to gather information for the Commission’s review of the rules. According to the public notice "the Commission will seek viewpoints and information from a broad range of experts; consumers; public interest and trade associations; labor unions; media industry representatives, both traditional and new; and other interested persons,"  as the first step in this review process. So what is this all about?

As part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC was instructed to do a regular review of broadcast multiple ownership rules, seemingly with the intent of reducing the prohibitions of those rules as part of the general deregulatory spirit of that Act.  Originally, proceedings were to review the rules every two years, a Biennial Review.  However, those reviews kept dragging on and becoming consolidated with each other so Congress eventually amended the law to require that the review take place only once every four years.  But each time the FCC has taken action on the rules, especially any time there has been any liberalization, there has been a major outcry from consumer groups that they were left out of the process.  Perhaps the just announced hearings are an attempt to short circuit that protest by getting the public involved even before the process begins.Continue Reading FCC Plans Public Workshops to be Held in Connection with Its Review of Broadcast Ownership Rules

With the end of the DTV transition, the future use of TV channels 5 and 6, about which we have written before, is now back before the Commission in connection with an FCC filing by the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, whose "radio rescue petition" was recently placed on a public notice opening a 30 day public comment period.   The FCC already has before it comments filed in its Diversity proceeding suggesting that these channels be reallocated for radio use, as Channel 6 is immediately adjacent to the lower end of the FM band, and the sound from many analog channel 6 TV stations could be heard on FM receivers.  While this petition has been opposed by certain TV interests, it is interesting to note that many television operators have been acknowledging that VHF channels, which had been the preferred channels for analog operations, may not be as advantageous for digital use, especially in urban areas, and may be particularly problematic for use with mobile digital television systems which are about to be introduced.

 In an analog world, VHF channels (those between 2 and 13) were prized by broadcasters, as stations operating on those channels could operate at power levels significantly lower than UHF stations (saving electricity costs), and still cover greater areas.  Many broadcasters thought that these benefits, particularly the lower power costs, would carry over into the digital world, and opted to remain on VHF channels for their digital operations – in some case abandoning the UHF temporary transition channel on which they were operating digitally during the period when they were running both a digital and an analog station before the end of the transition, to return to their VHF channel for their final digital operation.  Right after the digital transition was complete and these stations had moved back to their old VHF channels for their digital operations, in several major markets, many broadcasters operating on VHF channels found that their digital operations had significant problems, as the power levels were insufficient to reach many over-the-air sets, particularly those using "rabbit ears" antennas in urban areas.  Continue Reading Will TV Channel 6 Be Used For Radio? – MMTC Petition Raises the Issue, Again

The FCC recently issued two reminders about television programmer’s obligations to members of their audience who are hearing impaired.  The first notice made clear that stations must caption 100% of their "new, non-exempt" Spanish language programming as of January 1, 2010.  The second notice was to remind broadcasters that, when providing emergency information, they must make…

In the past several weeks, broadcast indecency has been back in the news – seemingly almost on a daily basis.  First, there was the story about Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for Virginia governor who, seemingly inadvertently, dropped the f-bomb, perhaps as a result of tripping over his tongue during a news interview on a news radio station in Washington.  Then came the extensive coverage of New York City TV newscaster Ernie Anastos who, during on-air banter with the weather man, also let the f-word fly – in what was apparently not a slip of the tongue, but perhaps a slip of the brain, where the anchor must have thought that he was somewhere other than on the set of a live TV newscast.  And then this past weekend, an actor on Saturday Night Live let the word fly during the late night program.  These incidents come on the heels of the FCC releasing its statistics on complaints that it had received in the first quarter of this year (reflecting many indecency complaints in the last month), while the Commission has asked the Court of Appeals for the opportunity to reexamine its decision in the Janet Jackson case to determine if any violation of the indecency rules was "willful."  What does all of this activity mean?

The recent well-publicized on-air slip-ups demonstrate how the fleeting expletive, which have formed the basis of a number of recent FCC cases, including the Supreme Court decision upholding the FCC’s authority to decide to change its prior holdings and issue fines for such utterances (but leaving open the constitutional questions as to whether the FCC regulation is consistent with the First Amendment), can no longer hide from public examination.  In the past, fleeting expletives were just that – fleeting.  If there was an on-air slip up, people in the audience may have done a double take, trying to decide if they really heard what they thought that they heard.  Often, there would be a shrug of the shoulders and the event would pass.  Not so in today’s electronic world.  Now, when a politician or a TV announcer slips up and let’s one of those you-can’t-say-that-on-TV words slip, the listening public quite often has the opportunity to check out YouTube or some other website to confirm what they did or didn’t hear.  As a recent press article about the NY anchor observes, these events become viral.  A similar observation was made today about the SNL skit.  And, when they become viral, the FCC often hears about it in the form of a complaint.  As the FCC does not usually monitor stations themselves looking for indecency, but instead only takes action where a member of the public complains, the viral preservation of these incidents have no doubt resulted in far more FCC complaints that would have otherwise occurred – certainly more than have occurred in the past.Continue Reading Broadcast Indecency Can’t Hide – A Candidate for Governor, a TV Newscaster, Saturday Night Live and the Clothing Malfunction

The FCC’s auction of 122 FM radio licenses came to a close last week with nearly a third of the licenses — 37 to be precise — remaining unsold at the closing hammer.  The outcome of the auction, which raised a net total of just $5.25 million on the sale of 85 licenses, may be…

Last week, we wrote about the FCC fining stations for a number of violations found at the studios of some broadcast stations.  In these same cases, the FCC also found a number of technical violations at the tower sites of some of the same stations.  Issues for which fines were issued included the failure to have an locked fence around an AM station’s tower, the failure of stations to be operating at the power for which they were authorized, and the failure to have a station’s Studio Transmitter Link operating on its licensed frequency.

An issue found in two case was the failure to operate at the power specified on the station’s license.  In one case, an AM station simply seemed to not be switching to its nighttime power – in other words, at sunset, it was not reducing power from the power authorized for its daytime operations.  The second case was one where another AM station was not switching to its nighttime antenna pattern after dark.  In that case, there were apparently issues with the nighttime antenna but, rather than request special temporary authority from the FCC to operate with reduced power until the problem was fixed, the FCC notes that the station apparently just kept operating with its daytime power.  An STA is not difficult to obtain when there is a technical issue (as the FCC does not want stations going dark if it can be avoided), and some effort is made to specify a power that avoids interference to other stations.  So, if faced with technical problems, request authority for operations that are different from those authorized by the station’s license until those problems can be fixed, or risk a fine from the Commission.Continue Reading FCC Inspections – Transmission Site Fines for Overpower Operation, Unlocked Tower Fences, and Improper STL Operations

The NAB today announced that it has selected Gordon Smith, a former Republican Senator from Oregon, as its new President.  He succeeds David Rehr, who left the NAB last Spring.  Smith has been practicing law in Washington since leaving the Senate after being defeated in his reelection bid in the 2008 election.  While in the Senate, he served on the Commerce Committee that oversees the FCC.  From a quick on-line search, it appears that he was active in the push for the "broadcast flag" sought by broadcast program producers to identify copyrighted video content broadcast by digital television stations.  Other than his Congressional background, it does not appear that he has other direct broadcast experience.  I would be interested in any knowledge that readers of this blog have about other connections he may have to the broadcast media and any past positions that he has taken on broadcast issues.

Having someone with experience on Capitol Hill was clearly crucial to the NAB given how many controversial issues broadcasters are now facing from Congress and from the FCC.  When David Rehr departed, we wrote about the many issues facing the NAB, most of which are still pending.  These include: 

  • The potential broadcast performance royalty – i.e. the recording industry’s attempts to, for the first time,  impose a sound recording royalty on broadcasters for their over-the-air transmission of music

  • The FCC’s implementation of their White Areas order allowing wireless users to use parts of the TV spectrum – and the appeals and other attempts to overturn or modify that decision

  • The reauthorization of SHVERA, to continue to allow satellite companies to beam local television signals into local markets – where parties are raising all sorts of extraneous issues about carriage rights and retransmission consent, possible changes in TV market boundaries, and changes in the rights of satellite carriers to import distant signals.

  • The FCC’s localism proceeding, which could impose new obligations on broadcasters at a time when broadcast competition has never been so intense – when the marketplace should dictate how broadcasters best serve their communities

  • Potential Congressional effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in some form or another

  • A number of FCC proceedings that could affect new methods of advertising meant to combat technological changes – like embedded advertising and product placement that are meant to partially overcome the effects of DVRs.

  • Congressional attempts to regulate advertising and programing – including potential efforts to restrict prescription drug ads, ED treatments, violent programming and programming that promotes unhealthy foods

  • FCC attempts to reign in technical changes in FM stations to allow them to take steps to increase power and to move into larger markets

  • Congressional moves to remove restrictions on LPFM stations on channels that are third-adjacent to full power facilities – and to potentially give these new stations rights to replace existing FM translators

Continue Reading NAB Selects Gordon Smith as New President

Last week, the FCC released a decision denying objections to the sale of the NY Times-owned radio station in New York City – objections based on the fears of certain listeners that the sale would mean the loss of the station’s classical music service.  In rejecting the petitions, the FCC relied on the long-standing policy of the FCC not to get into format questions, citing a thirty year old policy statement, upheld by a Supreme Court decision, which found that such review "would not benefit the public, would deter innovation, and would impose substantial administrative burdens on the Commission."  In other words, the Commission concluded some thirty years ago that it had no place in making programming decisions for broadcasters.  It is ironic that this decision was released on the same date as comments were due at the FCC on the MusicFirst petition arguing that broadcasters should be compelled to air specific content – commercials that advocate the adoption of a performance royalty and music from performers who supported the royalty. 

It appears from a review of the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System that, while the FCC solicited comments on the MusicFirst petition, MusicFirst itself did not choose to file anything in response to that request.  A few musicians’ groups did file comments, echoing the concerns originally raised by MusicFirst, but with very little specificity to support the implication that there was a nationwide conspiracy of broadcasters to boycott music from royalty supporters.  And, while most of the comments stated that they did not want to abridge the First Amendment rights of broadcasters, they nevertheless went on to say that broadcasters who did not air statements in support of the royalty should have sanctions imposed.  Maybe I’m missing something, but that sure seems to be an invitation to government compelled speech.   The NAB filed extensive comments addressing the First Amendment implications of the complaint. Continue Reading FCC Says It Will Stay Out of Programming Decisions – On Same Day MusicFirst Petition Comments Were Due

Last week, the FCC issued several fines to broadcasters for failure to observe some basic FCC rules.  As there many FCC rules to observe, broadcasters should use the misfortune of others who have suffered from these fines as a way to check their own operations to make sure that they meet all of the required Commission standards.  In the recent cases, fines were issued for a variety of violations, including the failure to have a manned main studio, the failure to have a working EAS system, incomplete public files, operations of an AM station at night with daytime power, and the failure to have a locked fence around an AM tower.  This post deals with the issues discovered at the studios of stations – a separate post will deal with the issues at the transmitter sites. 

The main studio rule violation was a case that, while seemingly obvious, also should remind broadcasters of their obligations under the requirement that a station have a manned main studio.  In this case, when the FCC inspectors arrived at the station’s main studio, they found it locked and abandoned.  Once they were able to locate a station representative to let them into the studio, they found that there was some equipment in the facility, but it was not hooked up, nor was there any telephone or data line that would permit the station to be controlled from the site.  The Commission’s main studio rules require that there be at least two station employees for whom the studio is their principal place of business (I like to think of it as the place where these employees have their desks with the pictures of their kids or their dog, as the case may be, and where they show up in the morning to drink their morning cup of coffee before heading out to do sales, news or whatever their job may be).  At least one of the two employees who report to the studio as their principal place of business must be a management level employee, and at least one of those employees must be present during all normal business hours.  Thus, the studio should never be devoid of human life.  The studio must be able to originate programming, and the station must be able to be controlled from that location so that the employees there could originate programming in the event of a local emergency.  In light of these violations and others, the station in this case was fined $8000.Continue Reading FCC Inspections – Fines for Violations of Rules on Main Studio, EAS, and Public File

The threat from the recent fires to the tower farm on Mount Wilson from which many of the radio and television stations serving the Los Angeles area operate highlight the need for broadcasters to have an emergency plan in the event that some local catastrophe affects their tower site.  The fact that this fire comes near to the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, where many broadcasters lost power, but where others where able to provide a lifeline to their communities, reminds broadcasters that emergencies can strike anywhere in the country, and broadcasters need to be ready.  The FCC’s Public Notice issued this week, adopting special procedures for stations in the area affected by the fire, demonstrate that the FCC is ready to work with broadcasters to provide service in the time of a widespread disaster, relaxing many of its normal rules.  The FCC has been very good in helping stations in the event of a mass disaster – even helping broadcasters during Katrina cut through the red tape of other agencies in order to assure their continued operation.  But broadcasters need to familiarize themselves with the rules about emergency operations, and be ready to deal with a more isolated disaster that may not receive enough attention for the FCC to, on its own, relax these rules.

One of the rules highlighted by the FCC’s public notice is Section 73.1250(f) of the Commission’s Rules, which allows an AM station to operate at night with its daytime power in the event of an emergency.  As many AMs operate only during daylight hours, and others routinely reduce power at night or use a directional antenna that restricts radiation in directions which may contain significant populations, this ability to continue to operate with daytime power and antenna pattern at night can allow a station to fully serve its community in times of emergency.  However, a broadcaster taking advantage of this provision needs to observe the requirements of the rule.  First, it must notify the FCC that it is operating under this rule within 48 hours of beginning to do so.  If the station causes irreparable interference to another station, it may be forced to curtail such operations. Moreover, the operation must be on a noncommercial basis (apparently to limit any financial incentive for a station to abuse this provision).  And finally, one issue not addressed in the FCC’s public notice about the Southern California fires, the use is only permitted if there is no other full-time service "serving the public need."  Obviously, that last clause is open to interpretation, but it would certainly seem to preclude an AM daytimer co-owned and simulcasting an FM station that covers the same are from suddenly operating at night.Continue Reading Operating Broadcast Stations in an Emergency – AM Operations at Night, STAs and Other Issues