May 2011

In another example of how seriously the FCC is considering the reallocation of portions of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband use, the Commission today issued a Public Notice freezing any new petitions for changes in the channels of television stations.  Since the DTV transition, almost 100 stations have changed channels – mostly moving from VHF to UHF channels, as television operators have in determined that VHF channels are subject to more interference and viewer complaints about over-the-air reception.  Many predict that these problems with the remaining VHF stations will be worse when the new mobile DTV devices roll out later this year.  Yet, as the FCC is looking at implementing its plan to recapture portions of the television spectrum for use by wireless broadband, this freeze has now been adopted.  No new Petitions for channel changes will be accepted, though requests already on file will be processed.

The FCC itself has acknowledged the difficulties with the reception of digital DTV signals broadcast on VHF channels, and has asked for public comment on how these difficulties can be overcome, though many engineers seem to feel that, short of repealing the laws of physics, the quest may be an impossible one.  In that same proceeding, the FCC has asked about how it should repack the television spectrum, so that the Commission could provide a contiguous swath of spectrum for broadband users.  These actions are being taken by the FCC even though, so far, there is no legislation authorizing the incentive auctions that would be used to pay some broadcasters to abandon their spectrum.  Without such legislation, the FCC cannot move forward with its plans – thus this freeze may be in place for some time.Continue Reading FCC Freezes Channel Changes By Digital TV Stations While Evaluating Reallocation of Television Spectrum for Broadband Use

In December, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (“CALM”) Act was adopted by Congress and signed by the President, addressing consumer complaints about television commercials that seem louder than the program content that they accompanied. As we wrote in our summary of the Act when it was adopted, Congress has long received many complaints about loud commercials and decided to act, even though many industry groups were concerned about the ability to design an effective system to deal with the contrasts that sometimes exist between the quiet dialogue that might precede a commercial break and the commercial advertisement itself. Nevertheless, Congress adopted the CALM Act, and instructed the FCC to adopt implementing rules within a year. This past week, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, looking to adopt rules to implement the statute for over-the-air television broadcast stations, cable systems, satellite, and other multichannel video programming providers. In its NPRM, the FCC asks many questions trying to clarify the details of CALM Act implementation.

The NPRM raises a broad array of implementation issues, ranging from deciding exactly which broadcast stations and which MVPDs are subject to its terms, to the establishment of safe harbors for technical compliance. As discussed in more detail below, the Commission also asks whether stations and systems can shift the burden for compliance with these rules to program suppliers, such as broadcast and cable networks, and whether contractual means of guaranteeing compliance (such as indemnification provisions in contracts between networks and affiliates) are sufficient to ensure compliance by these program providers. Questions about how MVPDs deal with retransmission of broadcast programs, and who is responsible for noncompliant broadcast programming, are also asked. Finally, the FCC suggests processes for consumer complaints and the grant of waivers to stations and systems that cannot quickly comply with the new rules.Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comments on Implementation of CALM Act Regulating Loud Commercials on Broadcast and Cable Television

In March, we cautioned broadcasters against the airing of ads for medical marijuana.  Our concerns stemmed not only from a complaint pending at the FCC, but also because, despite the widespread belief that the Federal government no longer cared about medical marijuana use and sale, the Department of Justice had only said that prosecution was no longer a priority, not that it was no longer illegal.  In recent months, our concerns seem more and more justified.  We had worried about some local Federal prosecutor deciding that he or she had time to prosecute offenses, even though DOJ headquarters did not think it to be a priority.  But, based on press reports and DOJ’s own press releases, it looks like there has been at least some rethinking of the policies in Washington, DC as well.  The DOJ appears to be backtracking on medical marijuana, now saying only that it won’t prosecute individuals who use medical marijuana, but that dispensaries, even if set up under the color of state laws, are still illegal under Federal law and subject to Federal prosecution.  Thus, broadcasters, as Federal licensees, need to exercise extreme care in advertising such dispensaries.

In the last few days, NPR has broadcast stories about the Department of Justice writing letters to authorities in Rhode Island and Arizona, in both cases saying that the Federal government still considers the sale of marijuana, even medical marijuana, to be a Federal felony subject to prosecution.  Both states are now reconsidering their laws that would otherwise allow for the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries.  The DOJ, on its website, cites a US Attorney in Washington State who has written to the landlords of medical marijuana dispensaries, warning them of the penalties that they may face if they allow these dispensaries to continue to operate, going so far as to warn them that they may face the forfeiture of their property to the government as it is being used to distribute prohibited drugs.  As this letter states, “We intend to use the full extent of our legal remedies to enforce the law.”  This language should serve as a warning to broadcasters of the Federal government’s attitude toward marijuana dispensaries.Continue Reading More Concerns About The Broadcast of Medical Marijuana Ads

In several recent cases, the FCC issued big fines to stations that had significant gaps in their public inspection files – fines of between $10,000 and $14,000.  Unlike many other recent public inspection file fines, these fines did not arise from self-reporting of violations in a license renewal application, nor were they discovered as a result of a complaint from a disgruntled listener or competitor.  These fines also did not arise in connection with the discovery of other violations at the stations.  Instead, these fines were the result of FCC inspections – inspections that seemingly did not turn up other significant violations.  Thus, these cases serve as a warning that broadcasters need to ensure that their file is complete and up-to-date at all times.  Curiously, these large fines come at the same time that the FCC is about to consider comments on whether the public file paperwork burden is justifiable.

These fines were large – demonstrating a seeming trend to ever-higher fines for public file violations.  The $14,000 fine issued today went to a Class A TV station that had no quarterly programs issues lists in its public file for the entire license renewal term – 34 reports were missing at the time of the inspection.  Based on this egregious violation, the FCC decided that an increase over the base $10,000 fine was in order.  Two AM stations, which had pretty much the same violation as the Class A station – no QPIs for the same period of time – received $10,000 fines (see decisions here and here).  A third AM station received a $10,000 fine for having no new information in its public file since 2006.Continue Reading FCC Fines Of $10,000 to $14,000 for Broadcast Public File Violations – Discovered By FCC Inspections

Legal issues regarding privacy have long been an issue for broadcasters and other media companies.  Traditionally, privacy concerns for media companies have arisen in the context of news gathering, advertising or other on-air content that either was gathered in a way that intruded on someone’s privacy, or which used private facts or personal images, without consent, for commercial…

Just a reminder that radio stations in North Carolina and South Carolina are up next in the license renewal cycle, which means that pre-filing announcements for radio stations in these states must start on June 1st.  The announcements continue on June 16, July 1, and July 16, for a total of four pre-filing announcements. …

The FCC has issued a flurry of fines against broadcast stations in the past week or two.  While a number of these fines were for the operation of unlicensed pirate radio stations, several of the fines were for public inspection file violations, stations broadcasting with excessive power or failing to reduce power at nighttime, or…

With the kick-off of the FCC’s broadcast license renewal cycle comes some additional obligations for licensees, this time in the form of an FCC Form 396 Broadcast EEO Report.  The Form 396 is filed only at renewal time and serves to: 1.) confirm the licensee’s commitment to EEO, 2.) provide a narrative statement about how the station…

As part of the Local Community Radio Act which, among other things, repealed restrictions against protecting full-power FM stations from third-adjacent channel interference from LPFM stations, Congress required that the FCC conduct a study of the economic impact that such stations will have on full-power FM stations.  The FCC began the process of conducting that study, asking for public comment on a series of questions designed to look at that impact.  Comments are due on June 24, 2011, with reply comments to be filed by July 25.  The Commission asks for comments in two general areas, asking what impact LPFM will have on full-power stations’ revenues and on their audience share, but tentatively decided that it would not look at any economic impact that interference from LPFM would have on full-power stations.

What led the FCC to this tentative conclusion?  The FCC said that the Act did not specifically require any study of the economic impact of interference and, since the principal purpose of the Act was to set out how the FCC should deal with interference remediation, Congress had already addressed all that needed to be considered about any potential interference.  This view was bolstered by the inclusion in previous legislation of a specific directive to study interference, which led to the report from the MITRE  Corporation.  That report concluded that there would be no substantial interference from LPFM to full-power stations, which opened the door to the passage of the Act.  Thus, the Commission reached the tentative conclusion that no additional study of the economic impact of LPFM was necessary, but they seek comment on that tentative conclusion.  We expect that there will be such comments.Continue Reading FCC to Study Economic Effect of LPFM on Full-Power FM – But Not the Economic Impact of Any Interference that May Be Caused