November 2010

The FCC today started an examination of the future of the spectrum currently used by broadcast television, beginning the formal process of implementing the ideas raised in its Broadband Plan of repurposing some of that spectrum for use by wireless broadband technologies. Specifically, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking comment on a number of issues. While the full text of the FCC’s order has not been released, many of the issues for consideration can be gleaned from the comments made at the FCC meeting. In the initial presentation made about the NPRM, it was stated that the principal issues to be addressed in the NPRM were:

  • Allowing new primary allocations in the television spectrum for fixed and mobile wireless users.
  • Providing a framework that would allow two or more broadcast television stations to share a single 6 MHz channel, retaining full must-carry rights for each station, while allowing for the return of spectrum to the FCC to be auctioned for wireless uses
  • Looking at ways to increase the value of VHF television channels (channels 2 through 13) for DTV use, including proposals to allow stations operating on such channels to operate at higher power and to increase performance standards for indoor antennas

Co-primary uses could be important for many TV users, as currently LPTV and TV translator stations are secondary services, implying that such services might be preempted by new primary wireless users.  The enhancement of the VHF spectrum would be important to any attempt to dedicate significant spectrum to wireless broadband without substantial disruption to over-the-air television, as without the use of those channels (which are underutilized, particularly in urban markets, as they have proved to be very susceptible to interference and do not provide as broad coverage as VHF analog service did), the ability to repack the TV spectrum to clear portions of the spectrum for wireless would be very restricted in the major metropolitan areas where any spectrum crunch is likely to be most acute. 

As FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stated, this was an efficient presentation on an important issue. The explanation of the proposals took far less time than each of the Commissioner’s individual statements, all of which raised important issues that will be addressed in this proceeding.   The FCC public notice about this proceeding is available by clicking here.  But an examination of each of the Commissioner’s statements (which are available through the links on their names, below) is important to understand the scope of the issues to be addressed by the FCC. Continue Reading FCC Adopts Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Looking to Reallocate Some TV Spectrum to Wireless Broadband

Many station owners think they can adopt any name, positioning statement or slogan for their station so long as no one else in the market is using the exact same name or slogan.  That thinking is often incorrect, and can be very costly if a name is adopted and has to be changed later because it infringes on someone else’s intellectual property rights.  Nicknames and slogans used in station advertising or promotion are controlled by trademark law.  Even a station’s call sign, which must be approved by the FCC, cannot be too similar to an in-market competitor’s call sign without running afoul of trademark law.  You may have read about recent litigation concerning the station nicknames "Bob" and "Bob FM."  In that case, there is apparent contour overlap between two separately owned stations using the same name.  But trademark law can come into play even when stations are not in the same market and do not have overlapping contours.

Trademark rights can be established in one of two ways.  The first station to use a name or slogan can establish priority within that station’s geographic market or contour.  Alternatively, one can file an application for registration of a station name or slogan at the US Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO"), and thereby obtain nationwide rights in that name or slogan, if no one else had prior use or a prior application.  Since trademark applications can be filed on an intent-to-use basis, a station can establish priority for a mark it is not yet using.  This is why a trademark search is so important prior to using a mark. Continue Reading Looking for a New Positioning Statement, Slogan or Name for Your Station? – Consult a Trademark Attorney First

Yesterday, the FCC released four different items to implement the changes enacted by Congress in the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, better known as STELA. With one item addressing significantly viewed out-of-market stations, two items regarding signal prediction and measurements for the reception of DTV signals, and a Public Notice requesting comments and data for a report to Congress, the FCC has wrapped up several open issues regarding STELA. As we have written about previously, here and here (among others), in addition to extending the blanket copyright license allowing satellite television providers to deliver distant signals to "unserved" viewers unable to receive a signal from their local network affiliate, STELA raised a few additional issues that the FCC needed to address through various rule makings.  With yesterday’s flurry of activity, the FCC has now addressed those issues.

With the first item, the Commission modified the significantly viewed rules that allow for the importation of distant signals in certain circumstances.  The item clarifies that a satellite subscriber need only receive the local-into-local package as a precondition for that subscriber to receive a significantly viewed station, they don’t have to receive the specific local (i.e., in-market) affiliate of the same network as a precondition to receive a distant station affiliated with the same network.  The item further clarifies that STELA no longer requires that equivalent bandwidth be dedicated to in-market and significantly viewed stations, so much as there is an HD format requirement.  Accordingly, subscribers can only receive a significantly viewed HD signal, the satellite carrier must carry the HD signal of the local station affiliated with the same network.  In reaching its decision, the Commission was cognizant of the tension between the protection of localism and Congress’s intention of achieving closer parity between the rules for satellite TV providers and cable TV providers, and it worked to reach a balance between those two sometimes competing goals.  A copy of the Order is available here.Continue Reading FCC Releases Multiple Items Implementing Rules for Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA)

At the urging of virtually the entire broadcast and cable industry, as well as the communications engineering community, the FCC today granted an extension of time for broadcasters and other EAS participants to come into compliance with the new CAP reception requirements – putting off the need for compliance until September 30, 2011.  CAP (the Common Alerting…

Operating a communications tower can always lead to issues, but two recent FCC decisions give tower owners some degree of relief. In one decision, the Commission’s Audio Services Division rejected a petition filed against the construction of new facilities for an AM station in Wasilla, Alaska – rejecting claims that the FCC’s RF radiation standards were not strict enough to protect local residents. In another case, the FCC determined that towers using an automatic system to monitor tower lighting – the “RMS system" – did not need to physically inspect the lights on the tower every quarter, as now required, but instead could do so annually, and set up an expedited system for approving tower owners who want to take advantage of this flexibility. 

The first case, dealing with RF radiation, may be dismissed by some as just a decision stating the obvious – that a station that complies with the FCC’s RF radiation standards should be allowed to be constructed. But it is not always so simple. We have had clients face situations in many areas around the country where local residents complained about a new broadcast facility – blaming it for everything from the failures of electronic equipment to the health problems of nearby residents. Various organizations have espoused theories that the FCC’s RF standards are insufficient to protect the public, and their theories are often publicized through the Internet. And sometimes, these complaints can be brought to local elected officials who, not wanting to anger local voters, try to make an issue out of what should be a fairly straightforward analysis.Continue Reading FCC Decisions Making the Life of a Tower Owner Easier – Easing Approval for Automatic Monitoring, and Making Clear that RF Radiation Standards Are Not Arbitrary

The big news in the music world this week is that Apple finally is able to sell digital downloads of the Beatles catalog in its iTunes music store.  For years, the copyright holders who control the Beatles master recordings have withheld permission to use the Beatles recordings on iTunes and other digital download and on-demand streaming services, seemingly afraid of diluting the value of their copyrights.  There are other bands who have had a similar reluctance to make their recordings available on-line.  While this impasse has now been broken by the biggest name among these digital holdouts, at least as to iTunes, some have asked why it is that the Beatles were never missing from Internet radio, while they were absent from these other services.  The answer is the statutory license under which Internet Radio operates.

While there have been many disputes over the royalties that have been imposed under the statutory license created by Congress which allow non-interactive digital music companies to use sound recordings to provide music to their customers, there is no question that the license has fulfilled one of its primary functions – making sure that there is access by Internet radio operators to the entire catalog of sound recordings available in the United States.  One of the principal reasons that the statutory license was created was the inherent difficulty, if not the impossibility, for a radio-like digital service operating under the sound recoding performance royalty first adopted in 1995 to secure permission from all of the copyright holders of all of the music that such services might want to use.  Thus, Congress adopted the statutory license which requires the copyright holder to make available its sound recordings to non-interactive services, in exchange for the service agreeing to pay a statutory royalty – the royalty now set by the Copyright Royalty Board.  But only non-interactive services, where listeners cannot select the songs that they hear, are covered by that statutory royalty (see our summary here of one of the cases dealing with the question of what is and what is not a non-interactive service).Continue Reading Apple iTunes Gets the Beatles – Why Internet Radio Had Them All Along

The FCC today announced that it will be holding a series of three hearings to assess the environmental impact of its Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) program.  The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") to determine if its programs have any adverse environmental impact.  In a Court decision in 2008, the US Court of Appeals determined that the FCC had not adequately assessed its obligations under NEPA with respect to the impact of communications towers on birds after there were claims that towers killed millions of birds each year.  The hearings are to review the Commission’s ASR process to gather evidence to determine whether a more extensive analysis of the potential environmental impact of tower construction is necessary when towers are constructed or modified.  In addition to the hearing, the FCC is soliciting written public comment on these proceedings. 

After the Court decision, American Bird Conservancy v. FCC, parties representing those involved in tower construction and conservation groups engaged in a series of discussions to attempt to resolve issues raised in the case.  The parties included the NAB, CTIA, PCIA, and the National Association of Tower Erectors.  Conservation groups included the American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and The National Audubon Society.  These parties reached an agreement that was submitted to the FCC, setting out three levels of environmental review of tower construction, based on the height of the tower proposed.  As summarized below, the height of a proposed tower would determine if the proposal for construction had to be placed on a Public Notice by the FCC, soliciting public comment about the proposed construction, and whether the tower would need to have an Environmental Assessment ("EA") completed before it was constructed (an EA is a more extensive analysis of the environmental impact of planned construction than the Environmental Impact Statements that most broadcasters include with their current FCC applications).  The parties suggested the following:

  • For New Towers above 450 feet above ground, an Environmental Assessment would need to be conducted, and any proposal would be put on a public notice to solicit public comment
  • For New Towers between 351 and 450 feet, the proposal would be put on a public notice by the FCC and, after comments are filed, the FCC would decide on a case-by-case basis if an Environmental Assessment is necessary
  • For New Towers 350 or less, the parties could not agree as to whether Public Notice would be required.  Resolution of whether Public Notice was required was left to the FCC. 

This proposal has not been adopted by the FCC, so it will no doubt be addressed as part of these hearings. Continue Reading FCC Plans Hearings on Environmental Impact of Tower Registration Program – Follow Up to Court Case on Impact of Communications Towers on Birds