Broadcast Law Blog

The FCC today issued an order extending the comment deadline in its Broadcast Diversity proceeding, extending the comment date a full month until July 30, with Reply Comments now due on August 29.  This important proceeding, about which we wrote here, will address many issues, including proposals to, among other things, repurpose television Channel 6 (and possibly Channel 5) for FM use after the completion of the television digital transition, to allow FM licensees who multicast to sell one of their multicast channels independently of the main channel, to allow certain AM stations with expanded band channels to avoid turning in one of their channels at the end of the 5 year transition period if the licensee is a designated entity (or sells one of its channels to a designated entity), and to provide Class A television stations with must-carry status.  The rulemaking proceeding will also look at whether the current definition of a designated entity (focusing on the fact that it is a small business as opposed to any review of the race or gender of its owners) is the one that the FCC should continue to use.  Thus, this is an important proceeding in which many broadcasters should be interested, and now you have more time to prepare comments on the issues that are raised.

Posted By David Oxenford In AM Radio , Cable Carriage , EEO Compliance , FM Radio , Low Power Television/Class A TV , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

I’m writing this entry as I return from the annual convention of the Iowa Broadcasters Association, held this year in Des Moines, Iowa. Anyone who has read, watched or listened to the national news this week knows of the terrible tornadoes that devastated a Boy Scout camp in that state, and the floods ravaging many of its cities and threatening others. I arrived in Iowa on Wednesday having just completed the filing of reply comments in the FCC’s localism proceeding, and after reviewing the many comments filed in that proceeding. After talking with, watching and listening to the Iowa Broadcasters, I was struck by the contrast between the picture of the broadcast industry contained in the Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking and that which I saw and heard reflected in the words and actions of the broadcasters. I could only think of how the broadcasters of Iowa and the remainder of the country have dealt admirably in their programming with the disasters that nature has sent their way, and with the other issues facing this country every day, and have been able to do this all without any compulsion by the government. Why, when we have probably the most responsive broadcast system on earth, do we need the government to step in and tell broadcasters how to serve their communities?

At dinner on Wednesday, I watched one station general manager repeatedly getting up from his meal to take calls from his station about their coverage of a tornado that had come within a quarter mile of his studio, and how he had to insist that his employees take shelter from the storm rather than continuing to broadcast news reports from their exposed location as the tornado bore down on them. Another told me of how he and another employee had spent the previous day piling sandbags around the station to keep the water from flooding the studio, all the time reporting between every song the station played updates on the weather and travel conditions in their community. Other stations had continued to operate after their tower sites flooded by gerry-rigging antennas on dry land to permit their continued operation. In one of the more minor inconveniences, one station talked about operating for a few days after their city’s waterworks had been inundated by floods , meaning that their studio (and the rest of town) had no running water for drinking or even for flushing the toilets.  Yet, between these inconveniences, large and small, the broadcasters continued their service, without being told how by the government.

Posted By David Oxenford In Emergency Communications , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In recent months, the broadcast industry has experienced one of the most active periods of regulatory activity in recent memory. Since November, the FCC has adopted enhanced disclosure obligations concerning the public interest programming of television broadcasters and requirements for an on-line public inspection file; rejected most calls for increased deregulation of broadcast ownership (allowing only the cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers in the largest markets); established specific prohibitions against advertising practices that involved “no Spanish, no urban dictates”; placed mandatory disclosure obligations on television broadcasters in connection with promotion of the DTV transition; proposed rules that could favor low power FM stations over improvements in full-power broadcast services and existing FM translator licensees; and proposed sweeping regulation of broadcasters which could potentially require specific amounts of nonentertainment programming by all stations, restrict the flexibility of broadcasters' location of their main studios, require 24-7 live staffing for all stations that operate on that basis, and perhaps even evaluate the music selection process of radio operators. Rumored to be in the offing are proposals to regulate embedded advertising, to adopt enhanced rules on sponsorship identification in connection with video news releases and payola-like practices, and perhaps even expand EEO reporting requirements (as the FCC recently asked for public comment on the employee-classification information for its long-suspended requirements for the filing of FCC Form 395 – the Annual Employment Report in which stations categorize all their employees by their employment duties, race and gender). And Congress has not been idle, with proposals introduced for the adoption of a performance royalty on over-the-air radio for the use of sound recordings, hearings about potential restrictions on prescription drug advertising, and a proposal to roll back the limited ownership reform adopted by the Commission in December.

With all this activity in a six month period under a Republican administration with a Republican majority on the FCC, during a time of great turmoil in the broadcast industry itself, as television prepares for the digital transition and broadcast revenue growth is slow or nonexistent (based on a variety of factors including general economic conditions and competition from the plethora of new media choices), many broadcasters are wondering what’s going on? And some fear even more changes could come about in any new administration that may come to Washington after the November elections, no matter what the result of that election. The one candidate with the most experience in the regulation of broadcasting, Senator McCain who has chaired the Senate Commerce Committee which regulates the broadcast industry, has by no means been a captive of the broadcast industry – leading efforts to enhance the use of LPFM and at one point pushing a spectrum tax proposal for television broadcasters for the use of the digital spectrum.

Posted By David Oxenford In Advertising Issues , Digital Television , EEO Compliance , FM Translators and LPFM , General FCC , Multiple Ownership Rules , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 3 Comments | Email entry

Just prior to the filing of comments in the FCC's Localism proceeding on April 28, one FCC Commissioner has spoken out, condemning these proposals as being unnecessary in a world of vast media competition, and likely unconstitutional.  According to press reports, Commissioner Robert McDowell last week argued that the rules were unnecessary and counterproductive in a world of media plenty.  The Commissioner pointed to all of the competition from digital and traditional media and asked why the Commission should impose on broadcasters rules abolished 20 years ago - rules which will put them at a competitive disadvantage in the new media world.  These are sentiments that we have repeatedly echoed here.

Today, as comments were being submitted to the Commission, a letter from 23 Senators was sent to the Commission making many of the same arguments.  The letter suggests that the Commission was imposing unreasonable costs on broadcasters when these broadcasters have an economic incentive to serve the public or risk the loss of their audience and the resulting loss of advertising and income.  In other words, they are arguing that the Commission had it right 20 years ago when it decided that marketplace competition would insure that broadcasters served the public interest.  This letter is a companion to the letter sent to the FCC the week before last by members of the House of Representatives, about which we wrote here.

Posted By David Oxenford In Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

The Public and Broadcasting is a document first written by the FCC in the 1970s to tell the public about how the FCC regulates broadcast stations, and to tell the public how they can get involved in the regulatory process.  Broadcasters must maintain a copy of the manual in their public file, and make it available to members of the public who request it.  For years, the manual was grossly out of date, finally being updated a few years ago.  Today, the FCC issued a Public Notice announcing that they have once again updated The Public and Broadcasting, and that all stations need to place the new version in their public file.  The new version, with a new subtitle "How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Station" can be found here.  Stations should print that document, and place it in their public file.

The manual is updated, and sets out most of the programming and other operational rules that would be of interest to the public.  The manual seems to be objective - pointing out that most programming decisions are left to the broadcast licensee to avoid violating the Freedom of Speech rights of the broadcaster. 

Posted By David Oxenford In General FCC , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

As part of its efforts to diversify the ownership of the broadcast media, the FCC promised in its recent order on Localism in the media (see our summary here) to have its engineering staff come up with a computer program to help people determine where a new FM station can be allotted by the FCC, opening the process that will result in an auction to determine who gets a construction permit to build that station.  Today, the Commission's staff released a public notice announcing that this new program is now on-line, and that interested people can see where a new FM station will "fit" consistent with all FCC rules that require that certain spacings be maintained between stations on the same or adjacent channels to avoid interference.  The program for determining whether new allotments can be made is available here.  All you need to do is provide geographic coordinates for a potential station, and the Commission's new program will tell you if a new FM station could work there.

As the Commission notes in its Public Notice, the tool will only locate Class A FM stations - the lowest power station - limited to 6 kw of effective radiated power at 100 meters tower height - giving a station a protected coverage radius of approximately 15 miles (though actual coverage may differ depending on factors including terrain and the proximity of other stations).  Also note that simply finding an empty channel does not get you a station.  Instead, a party who finds a channel in an area that they would like to serve must then petition the FCC to "allot" the channel to a specific community that they want to serve.  That proposal is processed by the FCC's staff and, if acceptable, placed on public notice when other parties can comment on the proposal or file counterproposals suggesting the use of the frequency at some other location.  Once the Commission reviews any comments, they will decide whether to allot the channel.  If and when an allotment is made, it still isn't ready for application.  Instead, the FCC saves new allotments and periodically puts out lists of these new allotments available for application - a "window" notice as a precursor to a possible auction.  Interested parties can then file with the FCC indicating interest in the channel and, if more than one person expresses interest in the channel (which virtually always happens), the channel will be auctioned to the highest bidder (though new entrants do get some bidding credits).  All told, the process can take several years from the discovery of the available channel to the award of the construction permit.  But, while the process may not be fast, this new tool provided by the Commission has made it somewhat easier.

Posted By David Oxenford In FM Radio , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 3 Comments | Email entry

The FCC Form 355 requiring "enhanced disclosure" by television stations was a frequent topic of discussion at this week's NAB Convention in Las Vegas.  That form will require that television broadcasters report significant, detailed information about their programming, providing very detailed reports of the percentage of programming that they devote to news, public affairs, election programming, local programming, PSAs, independently produced programs and various other program categories, as well as specifics of each program that fits into these categories (see our detailed description of the requirements here).  Obviously, all broadcasters were concerned about how they would deal with the expense and time necessary to complete the forms, and the potential for complaints about the programming that such reports will generate.  At legal sessions by the American Bar Association Forum on Communications Law and the Federal Communications Bar Association, held in connection with the NAB Convention, it became very clear to me that the obligations imposed by these new rules are obligations adopted for absolutely no reason, as the Commission has not adopted any rules mandating specific amounts of the types of programming reported on the form.  In fact, one of the Commissioner's legal assistants confirmed that, unless and until the FCC adopts such specific programming requirements, the Commission's staff will not need to spend any time processing these forms.  Thus, if the form goes into effect, broadcasters will be forced to keep these records, and expend significant amounts of staff time and station resources necessary to complete the forms, for essentially no purpose.

Of course, public interest advocates will argue that the forms will allow the Commission to assess the station's operation in the public interest, and will allow the public to complain about failures of stations to serve local needs.  But, as in a recent license renewal case we wrote about here, the Commission rejected a Petition to Deny against a station based on its alleged failure to do much local public affairs programming as, without specific quantitative program requirements, the Commission cannot punish a station for not doing specific amounts of particular programming. If the Commission adheres to this precedent, it will not be able to fine stations for the information that they put on the Form 355, but only for not filing it or not completing it accurately.  Thus, unless the Commission adopts specific programming requirements, the form will be nothing more than a paperwork trap for the unwary or overburdened broadcaster.  And, as is usually the case with such obligations, the burden will fall hardest on the small broadcaster who does not the staff and resources to devote to otherwise unnecessary paperwork.

Posted By David Oxenford In Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism , Television | Permalink | 2 Comments | Email entry

We recently wrote about the Federal Communications Commission’s actions in their Diversity docket, designed to promote new entrants into the ranks of broadcast station owners. In addition to the rules adopted in the proceeding, the FCC is seeking comment on a number of other ideas – some to restrict the definition of the Designated Entities that are eligible to take advantage of these rules, others to expand the universe of media outlets available to potential broadcast owners – including proposals to expand the FM band onto TV channels 5 and 6, and proposals to allow certain AM stations, which were to be returned to the FCC after their owners received construction permits for expanded band stations, to retain those stations or transfer them to Designated Entities. The proposals, on which public comment is being sought, are summarized below.

Definition of Designated Entity. The first issue raised by the Commission deals with whether the class of applicants entitled to Designated Entity status and entitled to take advantage of the Commission’s diversity initiatives should be restricted. One proposal is to restrict the Designated Entity status to companies controlled by racial minorities. The Commission expressed skepticism about that proposal, noting that the courts had throw out several versions of the FCC’s EEO rules, finding that there was insufficient justification offered by the FCC to constitutionally justify raced-based preferences. The Commission asked that proponents of such preferences provide a “compelling” showing of needed, as necessary for a constitutional justification for governmental race-based discrimination.

Posted By David Oxenford In EEO Compliance , FM Radio , Low Power Television/Class A TV , Multiple Ownership Rules , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Annual EEO Public File Report Deadline - April 1

Affected States:  Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas

By April 1, 2008, radio and television Station Employment Units (SEU) in the states listed above must: (1) prepare their Annual EEO Public File Report; (2) place it in the public inspection file of each station comprising the SEU; and (3) post the Report on the websites, if any station in the SEU has a website. The Annual EEO Public File Report summarizes the station's or the SEU's EEO activities during the previous 12 months, and provides information about the recruitment and outreach that the station conducted in the past year.  The states with the April 1 filing deadline are: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.

In addition to preparing the Annual EEO Public File Report by April 1, larger radio stations in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee must also prepare and file with the Commission an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report. Please note, only radio station SEUs located in these three jurisdictions that have 11 or more full-time employees are required to file an FCC Form 397 by April 1, 2008.

Biennial Ownership Report Deadline - April 1

Affected States:   Radio: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee; Television:  Texas 

By April 1, 2008, radio stations in Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, and television stations in Texas must prepare and file an FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Report with the FCC. Similarly, noncommercial stations in these states must file a Biennial Ownership Report on FCC Form 323-E. Ownership Reports are filed every other year, reporting on changes in the licensee’s ownership and updating the information requested by the form.

The timing for the filing of the Biennial Ownership Report and the preparation of the Annual EEO Public File Report is based on the anniversary of the filing of the station's license renewal. In turn, the renewal cycles are organized by state and type of service, and are staggered based on the FCC's prearranged schedule. Periodically, we will remind groups of stations as to their upcoming deadlines, and stations should be vigilant to make these required filings. 

Copies of our complete reminder memos containing additional information on each of these filing requirements can be found here (Ownership) and here (EEO).

Posted By Brendan Holland In EEO Compliance , General FCC , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In the early 1980s, the FCC deregulated many of the very detailed programing rules that governed broadcasters,  based on the theory that the marketplace would assure that broadcasters provided programming of interest to their local community.  The FCC looked at the marketplace, and decided that broadcasters either had to program to the needs of their community, or risk the loss of their audience to competitors.  Now, the FCC is proposing to bring back many of these rules with a vengeance (see our post on the FCC's current efforts) - imposing rules even more detailed than those that were abolished over a quarter century ago.  A look at this week's news raises the question of why now - when there are more media choices than ever (and when, particularly in the radio industry, revenues with which to meet such requirements are shrinking) - the FCC cannot rely on the marketplace to assure service to the public.  When marketplace forces require that broadcasters use their most important asset - their localism - to compete against all the new competition, the FCC is now looking to require that broadcasters meet their public interest obligations in a very specific, cookie cutter, government-mandated fashion.  Some of the announcements made this week highlight the extent of the competition that broadcasters now face.

On the most basic level, there are simply far more stations than there ever were.  According to an FCC Report published in 1980, there were 4559 commercial AM stations, 3155 commercial FM stations, and 1038 noncommercial FM stations.  While the number of AM stations had not increased substantially by the end of 2007 (4776), the number of commercial FM stations has doubled to 6309, and the number of noncommercial FMs has increased even more substantially, to 2892.  TV shows a similar increase in service - from 746 commercial and 267 noncommercial stations in 1980 to 1379 commercial stations and 380 noncommercial stations.  In addition, thousand of LPTV stations have been created, and over 800 LPFM stations - services that didn't even exist in 1980.  Clearly, the over-the-air competition is far greater than when the FCC initiated its deregulation efforts.

Posted By David Oxenford In Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC today released a Public Notice granting the request of several broadcast organizations for an extension of time to respond to the extensive proposals for re-regulating the broadcast industry contained in the FCC's Localism Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  We wrote about those proposals, here.  Comments, which were to be filed next week, have now been extended, with a new due date of April 28.  Reply comments in the proceeding are now due on June 11.  Broadcasters should seriously consider filing comments in this proceeding (see our post here explaining how to file such comments), which could substantially affect the way that they do business, dramatically increasing the paperwork and regulatory burdens that they face.

Posted By David Oxenford In Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

The Commission's Localism Report and related Notice of Proposed Rule Making seeking comment on a slate of proposed new rules has been published in the Federal Register.  Accordingly, Comments in this rule making proceeding must be filed with the Commission by March 14 and Reply Comments must be filed by April 14.  This is a very short period of time in which to comment on a number of significant proposals that are poised to return the broadcast industry to the regulatory structure of the 1980s.  As we reported earlier, the Commission proposes to re-regulate broadcast stations, and the NPRM suggests a number of substantive rule changes, such as effectively re-instating ascertainments, eliminating the unmanned operation of broadcast stations, imposing quantitative programming requirements, and requiring that main studios be maintained within a station's community of license.  This NPRM proposes a number of potentially burdensome requirements, many of which were eliminated by the Commission long ago, and many of which go beyond what the FCC has ever required.

Given the potential impact that the FCC's proposed rules could have on broadcast stations, broadcasters are encouraged to file comments in this important rule making proceeding. 
Comments can be filed with the Commission in paper or electronically through the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System.  When submitting comments, commenters should be sure to reference the docket number for this rule making, MB Docket No. 04-233.  

Posted By Brendan Holland In AM Radio , Digital Television , FM Radio , FM Translators and LPFM , General FCC , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism , Television | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Last week, the FCC approved the long-pending application for the transfer of control of Clear Channel Broadcasting from its public shareholder to several private equity funds. Even though the application had been pending at the FCC for over a year, the Commission’s decision was notable for the paucity of issues that were discussed. The decision approves the transfer, conditioned on certain divestitures by the Company and by the equity funds that will control the new company, including divestitures previously ordered by the Commission in connection with the investment of one of these funds in Univision Broadcasting but not yet completed, and rejects three petitions that, from the Commission’s description, did not involve fundamental issues about the nature of the overall transaction, but were instead devoted to certain limited issues, in two cases involving actions in a single market. The divestiture conditions were approved seemingly as a matter of course, and do not provide any new insights into the law concerning the FCC’s attribution rules (unlike the recent decision approving the transfer of control of Ion Television, about which we wrote here, which contained an extensive detailed discussion of what it takes to make an ownership interest “nonattributable” for purposes of the FCC multiple ownership rules). Given the lack of controversy in the Commission's order, what is perhaps most noteworthy about the decision are the concurring statements of the two Democratic Commissioners, which may provide some indication of the concerns of the Commission should we have a Democratic-controlled Commission following this year’s Presidential election.

Of course, as we’ve described in our posts about the FCC’s Localism Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (here), and the new rules regarding Enhanced Disclosure requirements for television broadcasters (here), the Commission has already begun to act in a far more regulatory manner than any other Commission in the past 20 years. Yet the issues raised by the Democrats in this decision are in areas not yet considered by the Commission. Commissioner Copps expresses his concern about the role of private equity in broadcast ownership, and whether such ownership is in the public interest. In numerous proceedings and in response to the presentation made at the FCC’s January meeting by the Media Bureau, Copps has suggested that private equity should be investigated, both to determine whether the Commission is fully aware of all ownership ties of the companies involved, and also (as emphasized in this case) for the potential economic impact on the operations of the broadcast stations caused by the new debt involved in the acquisition. Here, Commissioner Copps questions whether the announcement of a potential downgrade of the bonds of the Company if these deals occur should have been of more concern to the Commission. Private equity should be aware that, in a future FCC, an investigation of the economics of their operations should be expected.

Posted By David Oxenford In Advertising Issues , Multiple Ownership Rules , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC has released the full text of its Order adopting enhanced disclosure requirements for broadcast television stations - requiring that they post their public files on their websites and that they quarterly file a new form, FCC Form 355, detailing their programming in minute detail, breaking it down by specific program categories, and certifying that the station has complied with a number of FCC programming rules.  The Commission also released the new form itself and, as detailed below, the form will require a significant effort for broadcasters to document their programming efforts - probably requiring dedicated employees just to gather the necessary information.  The degree of detail required is more substantial than that ever required of broadcasters - far more detailed than the information broadcasters were required to gather prior to the deregulation of the 1980s - though, for the time being, much (though not all) of the information is not tied to any specific programming obligations set by the FCC.

 Before getting to the specifics of the new requirements, the thoughts of the Commission in adopting this order should be considered.  The Commission's decision focuses on its desire to increase the amount of citizen participation in the operation of television stations and the decisions that they make on programming matters.  While many broadcasters protested that the public rarely cared about the details of their operations, as evidenced by the fact that their public files were rarely if ever inspected, the Commission suggested that this was perhaps due to the difficulty the public had in seeing those files (the public actually had to go to the station to look at the file) and the lack of knowledge of the existence of the files (though broadcasters routinely broadcast notice of the public file's existence during the processing of their license renewal applications, rarely producing any viewers visiting the station to view the file).  With respect to the new Form 355 detailing the station's programming, the Commission rejected arguments that reporting of specific types of programming in excruciating detail imposes any First Amendment burden on stations, as the Commission claims that it has imposed no new substantive requirements.  Yet the Commission cites its desires that the public become more involved in the scrutinizing of the programming of television stations, which it states will be aided by the new form, and also emphasizes the importance that the Commission places on local service (an item detailed in Form 355).  At the same time, in its proposals detailed in its Localism proceeding (summarized here), the Commission is proposing rules requiring specific amounts of the very programming that is reported on Form 355, the very numbers that, in this proceeding, it claims have no significance.  Moreover, citizens will be encouraged by the Commission's actions to scrutinize the new reports, and file complaints based on the perceived shortcomings of the broadcaster's programming.  Broadcasters in turn will feel pressured to air programming that will head off these complaints.  So, implicitly, the Commission has created the First Amendment chilling effect that it claims to have avoided.

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , Public Interest Obligations/Localism , Television | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

At its December meeting, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Localism.  At that meeting, while the Commissioners discussed the generalities of the proposals being made, the specifics of the proposals were unknown.  The full text of the NPRM has now been released, and it sets out the areas in which the Commission proposes to re-regulate broadcast stations.  The order also hints at a number of other proceedings that the Commission intends to launch in the near future, and reminds broadcasters of a number of other existing proceedings that will potentially bring about greater regulation.  From the discussion in the NPRM, new rules will apply to all broadcasters - large and small - and potentially place significant burdens on all stations which, as always, are hardest for small stations to deal with.  Given the number of new regulatory initiatives discussed by the Commission, the NPRM is a must-read for all broadcasters, and this proceeding is one in which all broadcasters should participate.

Among the specific proposals on which the Commission asks for comments include the following:

Community Advisory Boards:  The Commission tentatively concludes that all stations will be required to establish a community advisory board to advise the station on the issues of importance to the community that can be addressed in the station's programming.  The Commission indicated that it did not want to bring back the burden of the ascertainment process that was abolished in the 1980s, but asks how the Board should be established so as to represent the entire community, suggesting that the categories of community leaders that were used in the ascertainment process could be used as a standard to guide the licensee in determining the make-up of the board.  Other questions include how often the board should meet, and how the board members should be selected (or elected - though by whom, the Commission does not suggest).

Other Community Outreach Efforts.  The Commission also suggests that other community outreach efforts should be considered as possible mandates for broadcasters.  These would include the following:

• Listener surveys by telephone or other electronic means (general public surveys were also part of the ascertainment process abolished in the 1980s, so if this were adopted together with the Community Advisory Board, ascertainment would effectively be back)
• Focus sessions or town hall meetings
• Participation of management personnel on community boards, committees, councils and commissions (mandatory civic participation?)
• Specific phone numbers or email addresses, publicized during programming, for the public to register their comments on station operations.

Remote Station Operations.  Comments are sought as to whether television stations should be forbidden to operate without being manned during all hours of operation.  Radio operations will be addressed in the proceeding to consider the public interest issues posed in the Digital Radio Proceeding (see our summary here).

Quantitative Programming Guidelines.  The Commission proposes to adopt quantitative standards for programming that a station would have to meet to avoid extra processing and scrutiny at license renewal time.  Questions include what categories of standards should be established (just local programs - or more specific requirements to set required amounts of news, public affairs and other categories - and how to define what programming would qualify in each category), should requirements be established as specific numbers of minutes or hours per day or per week or by a percentage of programming or through some other metric, should other specific requirements or measurements be established?

Main Studios.  The commission suggests reverting to the pre-1987 requirement that each station maintain a main studio in its community of license

Network Programming Review.  The Commission asks whether rules should be adopted to require that local network affiliates have some ability to review all network programming before it is aired.  If so, what programs would be exempt from the requirement (e.g. live programs), how much prior review is necessary, would such a right disrupt network operations?

Voice Tracking.  The Commission asks if "voice-tracking," (i.e. a radio announcer who provides announcing on a radio station from outside a local market, sometimes including local inserts to make it sound as if the announcer is local) should be limited or prohibited, or if disclosure should be required.

Local Music.  While the Commission indicates that it did not think that a ban on national playlists was required, it did ask whether broadcasters should be required to report the songs that they play, and how they choose their music.  With that information, the Commission asks if it should consider the amount of local music played when assessing whether a station has served the needs of its community at license renewal time.

Class A TV.  The Commission asks whether it should adopt rules that permit more LPTV stations to achieve Class A status, meaning that they would no longer be secondary stations subject to being forced off the air by interfering uses of the TV spectrum by full-power TV stations.

 

Posted By David Oxenford In Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 4 Comments | Email entry

The FCC today adopted a Report on its Localism proceeding, accessing the evidence that it gathered in its three year long investigation of whether broadcasters were adequately serving the interests of their local communities.  We wrote long ago about some of the specific issues that the FCC was reviewing in this proceeding - everything from the public interest programming of broadcasters to their music selection process to their response to local emergencies.  Among the report's conclusions were findings that not all broadcasters were adequately assessing the needs of their communities or serving the public interest through coverage of local news and other local events.  Because of these perceived weaknesses in broadcaster performance, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, much as we expected in our post here, tentatively concluding that re-regulation of the broadcast industry was necessary, bringing back some form of ascertainment and some specific quantifiable requirements for public interest programming. 

As in the case of the Multiple Ownership order adopted today (summarized here), the full text of the FCC Report and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has not been released.  Instead, only a short Public Notice, and the statements of the Commissioners at the meeting, are available to determine what was done.  From these notices, it appears that three tentative conclusions were reached.  They are, as follows:

• More Low Power TV stations should be able to get Class A status, meaning that they are no longer a secondary service that can be "bumped" by a new full power television station or by changes to the facilities of a full-power station
• Each licensee should be required to establish a community advisory board made up of specific groups of community leaders, with whom the station would meet on a regular basis to assess the needs of the community
• The FCC's license renewal standards should contain specific quantitative requirements for public service programming

While these may sound like noble decisions, there are many details and much history that the Commission needs to address before these proposals become final FCC rules.

Posted By David Oxenford In Payola and Sponsorship Identification , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

As we wrote earlier this week, the FCC is to consider at its meeting next Tuesday a Report on the results of its "Localism" proceeding, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on the findings contained in the Report.  From rumors going around Washington today, that Notice may ask for comments on tentative findings that would roll back of much of the broadcast deregulation of the last 25 years.   Rumors are that the Commission will be issuing "tentative conclusions" determining that the FCC should re-impose specific ascertainment requirements of some sort (requiring that broadcasters regularly meet with specific types of community leaders to get their input on station programming).  Also, the Commission will tentatively conclude that there should be quantitative programming requirements - that each station do a specific amount of local programming and perhaps specific amounts of news, public affairs other types of programs each week. If a licensee does not meet the requirements, the station's license renewal application would not be granted routinely by the FCC's staff, but instead would be subject to an additional level of scrutiny by the full Commission. The Commission is also apparently proposing that it return to the old rules that all stations have a manned main studio during all hours of operation. There is reportedly also a proposal that stations report to the FCC about how they decide what music they play.

Staring in the early 1980s, the FCC did away with many of the specific, detailed programming requirements that had previously bound broadcasters.  These requirements were quite burdensome, especially for small stations and stations in small markets with limited staffs.  Rather than spending their time on broadcast operations, station staff had to make sure that their operations met programming standards imposed from Washington, dictating the government's ideas of what was good for the station's audience, even if the station might feel, because of its format or the demographics of its audience that a particular type of programming did not serve the needs of its community.  In the mid-1980s, the FCC concluded that these rules were no longer necessary, as it was concluded that there was enough media diversity that the marketplace would dictate that broadcasters serve their audiences with appropriate content that met the needs of that audience as, if they did not, some other broadcaster would.  The economic incentive of the fear of the loss of audience to a competitor who better served the public was deemed enough to insure that the broadcaster acted responsibly.
.

Posted By David Oxenford In Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 5 Comments | Email entry

The FCC has released its agenda for its December 18 meeting - and it promises to be one of the most important,and potentially most contentious, in recent memory.  On the agenda is the Commission's long awaited decision on the Chairman's broadcast multiple ownership plan relaxing broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rules (see our summary here).  Also, the FCC will consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Localism issues (pending issues summarized here) following the conclusion of its nationwide hearings on the topic, as well as an Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on initiatives to encourage broadcast ownership by minorities and other new entrants (summary here).  For cable companies, the Commission has scheduled a proposed order on national ownership limits.  And, in addition to all these issues on ownership matters, the FCC will also consider revising its sponsorship identification rules to determine if new rules need to be adopted to cover "embedded advertising", i.e. product placement in broadcast programs.  All told, these rules could result in fundamental changes in the media landscape.

The broadcast ownership items, dealing with broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership, localism and diversity initiatives, all grow out of the Commission's attempts to change the broadcast ownership rules in 2003.  That attempt was largely rejected by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded most of the rules back to the FCC for further consideration, including considerations about their impact on minority ownership.  The localism proceeding was also an outgrowth of that proceeding, started as an attempt by the Commission to deal with consolidation critics who felt that the public had been shut out of the process of determining the rules in 2003, and claiming that big media was neglecting the needs and interests of local audiences.

Posted By David Oxenford In Advertising Issues , Multiple Ownership Rules , Payola and Sponsorship Identification , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC today adopted new requirements for television broadcasters to quarterly file a report with the FCC quantifying their service to the public.  The order also requires that stations keep their public file on their website, if they have a website.  Broadcasters will also be required to broadcast twice each day a notice as to how listeners can find their public file.  This order resolves some of the issues raised in a rulemaking proceeding (about which we wrote here) begun over 7 years ago as part of the rules to govern TV's digital transition.  Yet these new rules apply to analog as well as digital television operations.  In fact, the public file rule goes into effect 60 days after the publication of the FCC's order in the Federal Register.  

The new FCC form will replace the Quarterly Issues Programs lists prepared by licensees since the mid-1980s.  The Quarterly Issues lists were originally adopted to replace more detailed reporting requirements which forced broadcasters to collect and file the same types of information that the FCC is now requesting.  While the new forms are not yet released, from the discussion at the FCC meeting, it appears that they will require the following information:

• Details about civic and election coverage provided by the station
• Information about programming from independent producers that is aired by the station
• Information about the number of Public Service announcements (PSAs) aired by the station
• A description of efforts that the station has undertaken to serve its community
• Specifics about emergency information provided by the station
• Information about how emergency and other information is provided to viewers with disabilities
• There was also some discussion that indicated that the reports would require information about how stations ascertain the needs of their community that are addressed in their programs.

Posted By David Oxenford In Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC has released the agenda for its Open Meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 27.  The agenda is full of issues of importance to broadcasters, and several items may resolve issues that may be troubling - including issues relating to low power FM stations (LPFM) and resolving a long outstanding proceeding concerning the possibility of mandatory public interest obligations for TV stations.  The Commission also has on tap initiatives to encourage the entry of minorities and other new entrants into the broadcast business - even though comments on the Commission's proposals on this matter were received just a month ago.

First, the Commission is to release an Order on Low Power FM.  We have written about some of the issues that could be decided previously - including issues of whether or not to allow the assignment and transfer of such stations (here) and whether to give these stations preferences over translators and even improvements in full power stations (here and here).

On the TV side, the Commission seems ready to issue an order on the public interest obligations of television operators.  We wrote about the proposals - made as part of the Commission's DTV proceedings (though to be applicable to all TV stations), here.  Proposed rules included the standardization of quarterly issues programs lists, making station's public fies available on the Internet, and quantifying other public interest obligations. 

Posted By David Oxenford In EEO Compliance , FM Translators and LPFM , Multiple Ownership Rules , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In a very unusual, if not unprecedented case, the FCC announced a Public Forum on the license renewal application of WWOR-TV to assess the service provided by that station to the citizens of New Jersey.  While the FCC has in the past held evidentiary hearings on license renewal applications, those hearings were trial-type, adversarial proceedings held on specific issues before administrative law judges - not amorphous public proceedings on general questions about the service provided by the station.  This proceeding seems much more akin to the "localism" hearings that the FCC has been holding around the country (including the most recent held in Washington on Halloween), only in this case it is not conducted to come up with some general policy guidelines, but instead it is to assess whether a broadcast license worth hundreds of millions of dollars should be renewed.  While the revocation of a license for failure to serve the public interest under the license renewal standards that have been in effect for the last 11 years is unprecedented, this process may be one that other stations could face were proposals of certain Congressional and FCC proponents of license renewal reform to get their way.

As we wrote here and here, some have suggested that the FCC's license renewal process should be fundamentally reformed.  There have been suggestions that license renewal, which once occurred every three years for broadcast stations but now comes up but once every eight years, should return to that shorter cycle.  And some have suggested that the license renewal process should have more "teeth" to assess a broadcaster's performance (see, for instance, the statement of Commissioner Copps at the FCC Localism hearing in Portland, Maine in June). These teeth have been suggested to include everything from specific quantitative showings of public interest programming by the broadcaster, to local public hearings to assess the level of that service for some or all broadcast stations.  How the FCC would have the resources to conduct hearings for any meaningful number of broadcast stations is unclear - but the suggestion has been made by various proponents of license renewal reform. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

As the Commission held its last localism hearing in Washington on Halloween night, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's views on how the FCC should insure that stations are responsive to their communities became somewhat clearer.  In his opening statement, the Chairman outlined a set of actions that could be taken by the FCC to insure more service to the public.  While emphasizing the importance of efforts to encourage new entrants into broadcast ownership, the Chairman's proposals to add new regulatory requirements, including requiring that a station be manned during all hours of operation, may well have the result of making it more difficult for any new entrant (or for existing smaller operators) to profitably operate their stations.  In addition, he has offered proposals that would seemingly require cable and satellite carriage of in-state television stations not in a system's DMA - a proposal sure to cause concern to stations in DMAs that straddle state lines.

The Chairman's statement includes the following proposals:

• Requirements for uniform filings by broadcasters quantifying their public service - presumably their news and information programming and the public service announcements that they provide
• Requiring that stations have manned main studios during all hours of operations (not just during business hours)
• Allowing flexibility for LPFM stations to be sold, but adopting new rules to insure that such stations are used for local programming, not something provided from a network or other programming source
• Providing television viewers the ability to get an in-state television stations on cable and satellite even if the county in which they reside is "home" to a DMA with stations in another state
• Capping the number of applications accepted from the 2003 FM translator filing window - which might result in the dismissal of hundreds of applications that have effectively been frozen for 4 years

Posted By David Oxenford In AM Radio , Cable Carriage , Emergency Communications , FM Translators and LPFM , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

At last Thursday's Public Hearing on multiple ownership in Chicago, about which we wrote here, a statement was read by a spokesman for Presidential candidate Barack Obama.  According to press reports, the statement expressed the candidate's positions favoring shorter license renewal terms for broadcasters so that they would be subject to more public scrutiny, as well as criticizing the FCC for allowing broadcast consolidation.  These thoughts essentially echo the comments of FCC Commissioner Copps, especially on the subject of license renewal terms, whose views we wrote about here.  While many press reports have asked if this statement by Senator Obama foreshadows the broadcast ownership debate becoming part of the presidential campaign issues, we worry that it may signal a far broader attack on broadcasters during the upcoming political year.  The statement by Senator Obama is but one of a host of indications that broadcasters may face a rash of legislative issues that are now on the political drawing boards.

Broadcasters make easy targets for politicians as everyone is an expert on radio and television - after all, virtually everyone watches TV or listens to the radio and thus fancies themselves knowledgeable of what is good and bad for the public.  But those in Congress (and on the FCC) have the ability to do something about it.  And, with an election year upon us, they have the added incentive to act, given that any action is bound to generate at least some publicity and, for some, this may be their last opportunity to enact legislation that they feel important.  We've already written about the renewed emphasis, just last week, on passing legislation to overturn the Second Circuit's decision throwing out the FCC's fines on "fleeting expletives" and making the unanticipated use of one of those "dirty words" subject again to FCC indecency fines.  Clearly, no Congressman wants to be seen as being in favor of indecency (look at the rise in the indecency fines to $325,000 per occurrence which was voted through Congress just before the last election), and First Amendment issues are much more nuanced and difficult to explain to the voter, so watch this legislation.

Posted By David Oxenford In Advertising Issues , Children's Programming and Advertising , Indecency , Multiple Ownership Rules , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC recently issued a Public Notice reminding television broadcasters of the requirement that, after January 1, 2008, television stations (as well as cable and satellite television systems) must, in each calender quarter, close caption at least 75% of their Pre-Rule Programming.  Pre-Rule Programming is that programming first broadcast or exhibited prior to 1998 for analog programming and prior to 2001 for digital programming.  New Programming, that produced after those dates, should already be captioned by stations.  For details of this requirement (including the different rules that apply to Spanish-language programming), see our firm's memo on this subject, here.  Television station operators should review their programming schedules and contracts to be sure that they will be ready to meet these obligations.

The FCC Public Notice also reminds broadcasters that these requirements are different than the obligations of television broadcasters to provide emergency information visually - not closed captioned, but  visible to all.  We have written about how serious the FCC takes these emergency obligations in connection with fines that have been issued to broadcasters for providing on-air information orally without any visual presentation for the hearing impaired .  See, for instance, our entries, here and here.  With hurricane season still in full swing, broadcasters must keep these rules in mind, and remind their on-air staff to remember to comply with these obligations.

Posted By David Oxenford In Emergency Communications , General FCC , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism , Television | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

If you are a broadcaster, you know that it's not going to be a good day when you walk into a hearing on the possible extension of the performance royalty in sound recordings to over-the-air broadcasters and see buttons saying "I Support a Performance Right NOW" on the lapels of every other witness on the panel - including the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters.  But that was the scene in Washington, as the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing as to whether the right to collect a royalty for the public performance of a sound recording (the actual song as sung by a particular artist, as opposed to the underlying musical composition) should be paid by broadcasters.  Broadcasters in the United States have paid only a royalty on the public performance of the composition (to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC), and have never paid a royalty for the public performance of the sound recording.  The lack of a sound recording royalty has always been justified in the past on the theory that the artists and copyright holders in the sound recording benefit more than composers through the airplay of the sound recording, as they receive the bulk of the proceeds from CD sales, and the performers benefit from the promotion of live performances.  As they benefit from the promotion provided by the airplay of the song, there is no need for any sort of performance royalty.  As the music and radio businesses have both thrived in the United States - more so than anywhere else in the world - it seemed that this arrangement was mutually beneficial.

But, in recent years, the consensus over this mutually beneficial arrangement seems to have broken down.  Starting in 1995, a performance right in sound recordings has been imposed on digital services, including the royalty on Internet radio which has recently been so controversial (and about which we have written so much, here).  And, with the recent downturn in the record companies' business, additional sources of revenue are being sought - thus the RIAA and SoundExchange, the collective that receives sound recording performance royalties, have started a Congressional push to require the collection of royalties from over-the-air radio.  And that push was reflected in the hearing held on Tuesday before a House Committee that seemed clearly to favor the imposition of this royalty on broadcasters.

Posted By David Oxenford In Broadcast Performance Royalty , Intellectual Property , Internet Radio , On Line Media , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC released an order today, fining a broadcaster $20,000 for misrepresentations made in its license renewal application about the completeness of its public inspection file.  The fine issued in this case was not a fine for the fact that the file was incomplete (two stations in the cluster had each already been fined $4000 for the actual public file violations), but instead the fine was issued because the licensee had certified in its renewal application that the public file had been complete and accurate at all points during the course of the license term.  This case highlights both the need to keep an accurate public inspection file, and the need to carefully consider all certifications made in FCC applications.  Incorrect certifications can lead to fines and potentially even more severe sanctions if the FCC finds an intentional misrepresentation or lack of candor - the potential loss of a license.  Admitting a minor paperwork transgression like an incomplete public file will result in a fine - an inaccurate certification which appears to try to hide a problem can lead to far more severe consequences. 

In this case, the FCC found that the licensee had not maintained Quarterly Issues Programs lists.  The licensee claimed that its obligations had been met through a listing of public service announcements that the stations had put in their files.  The FCC rejected that argument, citing the requirement in its rules requiring that Quarterly Issues Programs lists contain "a narrative description of what issues were given substantial treatment" by the licensee as well as the programs that treated each issue.  In addition, the time and date of broadcast of each program, as well as its title and duration, is to be provided.  A simple list of PSAs does not meet these requirements - as it does not list the issues addressed, much less provide the detailed program information required by the rule.  For a summary of the Quarterly Issues Programs list obligations, and a model form to be used to meet the obligations, see our most recent memo on the subject, here.   Remember, the Quarterly Issues Programs Lists are a broadcast station's only official record of how they have served the public interest needs of its community, so be sure that adequate attention is paid to the completion of these forms.

Posted By David Oxenford In FCC Fines , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

In the broadcast world, if you stick around long enough, what was once big and then faded away will no doubt come around once again.  Whether its the resurrection of prime time games shows that faded in the 50s to become big again today, or the regulatory landscape - it all comes around again.  In comments made to an oversight hearing of the US House of Representatives yesterday, Chairman Martin stated that there is an item circulating through the FCC proposing to require that broadcasters file in their license renewal applications more detailed information about the types of public interest programming they provide.   Until the mid-1980s, broadcasters had to specify the percentage of their programming that was comprised of news, public affairs and "other" public interest programming, as well as the number of public service announcements that the station broadcast.  These specific requirements disappeared in the "deregulation" of the 1980s, but from the statements made yesterday, they may now be making a return if Chairman Martin and the Democratic Commissioners can agree on a set of rules to be imposed on broadcasters.

We've written about various proposals to require specific, quantifiable public interest obligations of broadcasters in the context of the recent digital radio order.  We also wrote about the long-outstanding proceeding to quantify public interest obligations of television broadcasters that was mentioned in a recent decision denying a license renewal challenge (and implying that a decision was coming soon).  Whether the Chairman's mention at yesterday's hearing of the upcoming "item" was a reference to these two proceedings, or to some entirely new effort to re-regulate broadcasters, remains to be seen.  But the "post-card" renewal that was adopted in the 1980s, which has continued to grow in size and complexity over the intervening years, may well grow significantly in the near future.

Posted By David Oxenford In General FCC , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 2 Comments | Email entry

In March, we wrote about the concurring opinion of Commissioner Copps in connection with the sale of Univision Communications, where the Commissioner asked whether it was in the public interest to allow the sale of broadcast companies to private equity firms.  That theme has now been picked up by Congress, as Congressman John Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Ed Markey, Chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, jointly sent a letter to the FCC asking for answers to a series of questions about the impact of private equity