Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

All commercial broadcasters (AM/FM/TV and even LPTV) have to file their Biennial Ownership Reports on December 1, beginning a very busy month in the broadcaster's regulatory world.  December 1 is also the deadline for noncommercial ownership reports to be filed by noncommercial radio stations in Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, and noncommercial television stations in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota (see our Advisory here).  Annual EEO Public File reports are also due to be in station files for stations in all of the states where noncommercial stations have ownership filings (see our Advisory on the EEO Public File Report here).  License renewals for radio broadcasters in Georgia and Alabama are also due on that date (see our License Renewal advisory here) , as are the Commission’s cut of the ancillary and supplementary revenues made by digital television broadcasters (our summary here).  And all full-power broadcasters need to file their reports on the results of the recent Nationwide EAS Test by December 27 (see our post here).

December also brings a Commission meeting, at which the CALM Act rules will be adopted according to the tentative agenda for the December 12 meeting.   The CALM Act is intended to eliminate loud commercials.  These rules are required by statute to be adopted in December (see our summary of the proposed rules here).  Comments on a number of other FCC proposals in rulemaking proceedings are also due. The FCC just announced  that comments in the proceeding to determine if FM digital operations using the IBOC technology (so-called HD Radio) can operate with different power levels on each side of the main channel are due by December 19 (see our summary of this proceeding here). Comments on the controversial proposal for the online public inspection file for television stations are due on December 22.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC adopted rules for the digital operation of FM radio stations (known as HD Radio or the Ibiquity In Band On Channel system - IBOC for short) in 2007 and allowed the Media Bureau to amend those rules as technical developments warranted.  In 2010, the Bureau authorized an increase in the power level of the digital portion of the FM signal by 6 db in all cases, and up to 10 db upon a showing that such an increase would not cause significant interference to adjacent channel stations (see our summary here). As the digital signal is carried on "sidebands" of the analog signal, which operate on part of a station's assigned  frequency that is closer to adjacent channel radio stations, an increase in power on these sidebands has the potential for causing interference to closely spaced stations.  In a Public Notice released today, the FCC asked for comments on whether it should allow stations to increase power at different levels on each sideband.  As set out by the Bureau, in some situations, a station may be closely spaced to another station on one side of its frequency, on a channel either higher or lower than the one on which the station operates, but not on the other side of its channel.  By increasing power on only the sideband furthest from the adjacent channel station, the station can protect the adjacent channel station, yet still enjoy the possibility of expanded coverage that the higher power provides.

As set forth in the Notice, this proposal is advanced by Ibiquity (the company that holds the patent on the digital radio system) and NPR, which has been very active in promoting its use.  According to studies that they have produced (and which are linked to in the public notice), a digital operation with greater power to one sideband than another is technically possible.   The FCC asks if it is a good idea, and gives interested parties 21 days to file comments (measured from the date that this notice is published in the Federal Register) and an additional 14 days to file replies to the initial comments.  In the past, we have found digital radio operations to be among the most controversial topics about which we write, with some who feel that the system is not working and will never work, and others who see much promise in the digital sound and multiple channels allowed by the system.  We look forward to seeing the comments filed in this proceeding, to see whether these attitudes continue to persist within the industry.

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

After Thanksgiving - everyone's thoughts turn to technology policy.  Well, maybe not everyone, but reading Thursday's New York Times, David Pogue wrote his column celebrating his 10th anniversary in the paper with observations about truths that he has discovered about the technology world.  Many of those same truths apply to broadcast policy, and are particularly relevant with a week coming up in which the FCC may take its first steps toward dramatically reshaping the media landscape as it considers the future of the television spectrum, and potentially repurposing some of that spectrum for wireless broadband.  Pogue's first observation was that new technology does not replace old technology - instead it merely provides more choice to the consumer.  He points out that TV did not replace radio, and that satellite radio didn't replace radio either.  Instead, these services became complements, perhaps eroding the audience of the established technology in some ways, and perhaps making the older technology redefine its mission, but the older technology survived, and remained relevant.  We've written similar observations about the future of radio - it's a technology that reaches masses with no incremental costs for adding new listeners - and is now and, for the foreseeable future will be, the most efficient way to reach large audiences with popular formats.

It is a similar story with other communications media.  And we sometimes over-react to short term trends believing that some audience erosion for a particular technology will result in its doom, when in fact it may just result in some form of re-invention.  In the last two years, we've seen print media go from being left for dead, to being part of one of the most talked about media deals of the last month - the merger between the Daily Beast and Newsweek to bring a print component to a new media darling.  Television, too, is not dead yet - it still the most watched source of video programming, whether distributed over the air or through some multichannel video transmission source, with over-the-air programming about to get a new take as mobile DTV begins its roll-out in the coming months. Recently, there has even been the occasional article about consumers "cutting the cord" - relying on over-the-air TV, supplemented by web video content, to drop their cable or satellite connection.  As Pogue suggests, all these media will continue to survive and offer choices to consumers.  But Pogue does not take into account the potential impact of a fundamental change in regulatory policy that intervenes to disrupt the natural progression of the marketplace.

Continue Reading...

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

In a recent decision, the FCC made clear that analog FM translators can rebroadcast the signal of a HD digital multicast channel from a commonly owned FM station.  For months, broadcasters have been introducing "new" FM stations to their communities via translators rebroadcasting HD-2 signals which are broadcast digitally on a primary FM station, and available only to those who have purchased HD radio receivers.  In the decision that was just released, the Commission's staff rejected an objection to the use of an FM translator taking a signal that can only be heard on a digital HD Radio and turning it into an analog signal capable of being received on any FM receiver.  In this case, the broadcaster rebroadcast his AM station on the FM HD station so that it could then be rebroadcast on the FM translator.  But, even if the HD multicast channel was a totally independent station that could otherwise only be heard on an HD digital radio, it could be rebroadcast on the FM translator and received by anyone with an FM radio in the limited area served by the translator station. 

The Commission did make clear, however, that a broadcaster cannot use another station owner's HD multicast channel and rebroadcast that on a translator if the broadcaster already owned the maximum number of stations allowed by the multiple ownership rules.  In other words, if a broadcaster is allowed by the multiple ownership rules to own 4 FM stations in a market, it could put a fifth (low power) FM signal in that market through the use of an FM translator rebroadcasting one of its own HD multicast signals.  However, if it had not itself converted its FM stations to digital so that it had its own multicast abilities, it could not do a time brokerage agreement and program the multicast signal of another broadcaster in town who had installed the digital equipment needed to do such multicasts.  An LMA or time brokerage agreement with another station for use of an HD multicast channel counts for multiple ownership purposes in the same way that such a programming agreement would if it provided for programming of a primary analog  FM station. 

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC's January 2010 Order authorizing FM radio stations to increase power on their hybrid digital radio operations was published in the Federal Register on Thursday establishing the effective date of the new rules as May 10th.  As we wrote earlier, the Commission's Order allows stations to increase from the current maximum permissible level of one percent of authorized analog effective radiated power (ERP) to a maximum of ten percent of authorized analog ERP.  So as of May 10, 2010, eligible FM stations may commence operations with FM digital operating power up to -14 dBc (that is, up to a 6 dB increase), consistent with the existing IBOC notification procedures and with no further authorization from the FCC.  Eligible stations may simply avail themselves of the voluntary power increase, but must notify the FCC electronically of the increased digital power within 10 days of commencement using the Digital Notification form via the Commission's Consolidated Database System (CDBS).

The exception to the ability to increase power is super-powered FM stations, which, regardless of their class, are limited to the higher of either the currently permitted -20 dBc level or 10 dB below the maximum analog power that would be authorized for the particular class of station, as adjusted for the station's antenna height above average terrain. The Audio Division's web site contains an FM Super-Powered Maximum Digital ERP Calculator available here to assist super-powered stations with determining the maximum permissible Digital ERP. Licensees of super-powered FM stations must file an application, in the form of an informal request, for any increase in the station's FM Digital ERP.  For power increases over 6 dB, licensees will be required to submit an application to the FCC, in the form of an informal request, for any increase in FM Digital ERP beyond 6 dB.  Licensees wishing to operate with an FM Digital ERP in excess of -14 dBc must make a calculation and determine the station's max permissible Digital ERP as detailed in paragraphs 17 through 20 in the Order, available here. 

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

This afternoon the Commission released an Order authorizing FM radio stations to increase power on their hybrid digital radio operations. This power increase is a welcome boost to HD radio operations and was eagerly awaited by many FM stations broadcasting in digital.  In a nutshell, the rule change allows stations to increase from the current maximum permissible level of one percent of authorized analog effective radiated power (ERP) to a maximum of ten percent of authorized analog ERP.  In raising the power permitted for digital radio operations, the Commission acknowledged that the current digital power levels are insufficient to replicate stations' analog coverage and that indoor and portable coverage are particularly diminished.  Building on proposals advocated by National Public Radio (NPR) and iBiquity, the Commission has provided for an immediate voluntary 6 dB increase in Digital ERP (except for super-powered FM stations, as discussed below).   In addition, stations will be allowed to seek authority for increases over 6 dB up to a maximum of 10 dB using an informal application process.

Once the Order becomes effective, eligible FM stations may commence operations with FM digital operating power up to -14 dBc (that is, up to a 6 dB increase), consistent with the existing IBOC notification procedures.  Stations availing themselves of the voluntary power increase must notify the FCC electronically of the increased digital power within 10 days of commencement using the Digital Notification form via the Commission's Consolidated Database System (CDBS).   The exception to this is super-powered FM stations, which, regardless of their class, are limited to the higher of either the currently permitted -20 dBc level or 10 dB below the maximum analog power that would be authorized for the particular class of station, as adjusted for the station's antenna height above average terrain.   The Audio Division's web site contains an FM Super-Powered Maximum Digital ERP Calculator available here to assist super-powered stations with determining the maximum permissible Digital ERP.  Licensees of super-powered FM stations must file an application, in the form of an informal request, for any increase in the station's FM Digital ERP. 

For power increases over 6 dB, licensees will be required to submit an application to the FCC, in the form of an informal request, for any increase in FM Digital ERP beyond 6 dB. Licensees wishing to operate with an FM Digital ERP in excess of -14 dBc must make a calculation and determine the station's max permissible Digital ERP as detailed in paragraphs 17 through 20 in the Order, available here.  

Continue Reading...

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

Another year is upon us, and it’s time for predictions as to what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2010.  Each year, when we look at what might be coming, we are amazed at the number of issues that could affect the industry – often issues that are the same year to year as final decisions are often hard to come by in Washington with the interplay between the FCC and other government agencies, the courts and Congress. This year, as usual, we see a whole list of issues, many of which remain from prior years. But this year is different, as we have had a list topped by issues such as the suggestion that television spectrum be reallotted for wireless uses and the radio performance royalty, that could fundamentally affect the broadcast business.  The new administration at the FCC is only beginning to get down to business, having filling most of the decision-making positions at the Commission.  Thus far, its attention has been focused on broadband, working diligently to complete a report to Congress on plans for implementation of a national broadband plan, a report that is required to be issued in February.  But, from what little we have seen from the new Commission and its employees, there seems to be a willingness to reexamine many of the fundamental tenants of broadcasting.  And Congress is not shy about offering its own opinions on how to make broadcasting "better."  This willingness to reexamine some of the most fundamental tenets of broadcasting should make this a most interesting, and potentially frightening, year. Some of the issues to likely be facing television, radio and the broadcasting industry generally are set out below.

Television Issues.

In the television world, at this time last year, we were discussing the end of the digital television transition, and expressing the concern of broadcasters about the FCC’s White Spaces decision allowing unlicensed wireless devices into the television spectrum. While the White Spaces process still has not been finalized, that concern over the encroachment on the TV spectrum has taken a back seat to a far more fundamental issue of whether to repurpose large chunks of the television spectrum (if not the entire spectrum) for wireless users, while compressing television into an even smaller part of what’s left of the television band – if not migrating it altogether to multichannel providers like cable or satellite, with subscription fees for the poorest citizens being paid for from spectrum auction receipts. This proposal, while floated for years in academic circles, has in the last three months become one that is being legitimately debated in Washington, and one that television broadcasters have to take seriously, no matter how absurd it may seem at first glance. Who would have thought that just six month after the completion of the digital transition, when so much time and effort was expended to make sure that homes that receive free over-the-air television would not be adversely impacted by the digital transition, we could now be talking about abolishing free over-the-air television entirely? This cannot happen overnight, and it is a process sure to be resisted as broadcasters seek to protect their ability to roll out new digital multicast channels and their mobile platforms. But it is a real proposal which, if implemented, could fundamentally change the face of the television industry.  Watch for this debate to continue this year.

Continue Reading...

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

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today issued a decision basically upholding the royalty rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board due under Section 114 of the Copyright Act by satellite radio operators for the public performance of sound recordings.  The CRB decision, setting royalties for the years of 2007 to 2012, established rates that grew from 6% to 8% over the six year term. As we explained in our post, here, the Board looked at the the public interest factors set out by Section 801(b) of the Copyright Act, factors not applicable to Internet Radio royalties, in reaching the determination these royalties.  Particularly important was the factor which took into account the potential impact of the royalties on the stability of the businesses that would be subject to the royalty, resulting in a reduction of the perceived fair market value of the royalty from what the board determined to be about 13% of gross revenues to the 6-8% final royalty set by the Board.  The Court upheld the Board's reasoning, rejecting SoundExchange's challenge to the decision, though the Court did remand the case to the Board to decide the proper allocation of the royalty to the ephemeral rights covered by Section 112 of the Copyright Act.

What was perhaps most interesting about the Court's decision was the concurring opinion of one of the three Judges, who stated that the fact that the Board's judges were appointed by the Librarian of Congress, and not by the President, "raises a serious constitutional issue."   This was the same issue raised by Royalty Logic in challenging the constitutionality of the CRB in the webcasting proceeding (see our posts here and here).  The Judge concurred in the majority decision as none of the parties to the satellite radio case raised the constitutional issue, but this very question was squarely raised in the webcasting proceeding, and thus may well be resolved in the decision on that appeal.

Continue Reading...

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

NPR Labs has announced that it is going to conduct a further study, financed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, of the potential of interference from a proposed increase in the power of HD Radio operations.  Last year, NPR had raised issues with the proposal by Ibiquity and a number of commercial broadcasters for power increases in the digital radio operations of FM radio stations.   At the end of last year, the FCC asked for comments on the proposal for increased HD radio power, and on NPR's concerns about the power increase.  As set forth in this week's NPR press release, the new study will be conducted in conjunction with other broadcasters in an attempt to arrive at a way to increase HD radio power without creating undue interference to the analog operations of existing stations.

While the FCC comment period in this proceeding has ended, the FCC is always willing to accept informal comments until a decision is reached.  The Commission is particularly interested in informal comments if those comments propose a way to resolve the conflict between parties to a proceeding.  If NPR is able, though this testing, to come up with a solution that will protect analog operations while allowing for a power increase in some or all HD radio operations, you can expect that the results will be reflected in the FCC's final action.  Thus, this study may have important ramifcations for the future of HD Radio. 

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

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

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

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Come the New Year, we all engage in speculation about what’s ahead in our chosen fields, so it’s time for us to look into our crystal ball to try to discern what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2009. With each new year, a new set of regulatory issues face the broadcaster from the powers-that-be in Washington. But this year, with a new Presidential administration, new chairs of the Congressional committees that regulate broadcasters, and with a new FCC on the way, the potential regulatory challenges may cause the broadcaster to look at the new year with more trepidation than usual. In a year when the digital television transition finally becomes a reality, and with a troubled economy and no election or Olympic dollars to ease the downturn, who wants to deal with new regulatory obstacles? Yet, there are potential changes that could affect virtually all phases of the broadcast operations for both radio and television stations – technical, programming, sales, and even the use of music – all of which may have a direct impact on a station’s bottom line that can’t be ignored. 

With the digital conversion, one would think that television broadcasters have all the technical issues that they need for 2009. But the FCC’s recent adoption of its “White Spaces” order, authorizing the operation of unlicensed wireless devices on the TV channels, insures that there will be other issues to watch. The White Spaces decision will likely be appealed. While the appeal is going on, the FCC will have to work on the details of the order’s implementation, including approving operators of the database that is supposed to list all the stations that the new wireless devices will have to protect, as well as “type accepting” the devices themselves, essentially certifying that the devices can do what their backers claim – knowing where they are through the use of geolocation technology, “sniffing” out signals to protect, and communicating with the database to avoid interference with local television, land mobile radio, and wireless microphone signals.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Last week, the FCC granted a brief extension of time in which to file comments on the proposed increase in power for the HD Radio operations of FM stations.  We wrote about the request for comments here and here.  Comments will address the requests of those who want higher power for their digital operations in order to increase building penetration of the HD radio signals (which have proven difficult to receive in some brick and steel buildings) and otherwise fill in coverage areas, and will also include submissions of those who are concerned about the potential interference to adjacent channel stations. The later includes NPR Labs, which produced a set of maps, available here, computing the potential interference that higher power HD operations could cause to a number of stations.  Especially for stations which rely on coverage beyond their protected service areas, and which operate close to adjacent channel stations that run HD operations, the proposed increase could have a substantial impact.   With the proposal for shared time operations that has now been highlighted by the Ion Media applications about which we wrote here, the diversity that comes from such fringe stations will have to be balanced against the diversity that can come from multicast digital channels.  Comments are now due on December 5, with reply comments due January 12.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC has requested public comment on the proposal (about which we wrote here) to increase the power of the digital radio transmissions from 1 per cent of a primary station's power to 10 per cent of that station's power.  The proposal to increase power for stations using the HD Radio system is supposed to help overcome reception issues, especially in buildings and in areas with terrain obstacles.  The Commission pointed to the discrepancy between that request, which minimized problems that would occur from such a power increase in HD Radio's In Band On Channel digital operation, and the report issued by National Public Radio (about which we wrote here) that suggested that such a power increase would result in significant interference.  This proposal may well divide FM broadcasters between those who feel that it is more important to increase power to help digital broadcasts penetrate buildings and other obstacles, and those who fear that this increased power will interfere with their analog operations - particularly affecting stations operating on channels adjacent to stronger stations operating in digital or with a fringe signal in their target market.  Comments are due November 28, and replies on January 4.  As with any proposal on radio's digital conversion, this is bound to be controversial. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

A recent proposal to increase the power levels at which HD Radio stations operate - to improve coverage and, perhaps more importantly, building penetration so that people can receive digital channels inside buildings - has been the subject of a cautionary study released by National Public Radio.  That study was summarized in a story in the NPR magazine Current (an executive summary can be found here, and the entire 280 page study is here).  The study agrees that an increase in power suggested by the recent proposal would increase HD Radio coverage and significantly increase building penetration, but it would do so only at the cost of causing interference to existing analog stations - in some cases significant interference.  Such interference would be especially troublesome in receivers in cars, where radio broadcasters have long concentrated some of their most important programming to capture people in the place where competing entertainment options are most limited.   

The NPR study does suggest that there could be ways to limit the interference using directional antennas or lessening power but using digital boosters that could be tuned slightly off-center on their frequencies to protect adjacent channel stations.  HD radio operates on the sides of a station's analog channel (thus its original name - "IBOC" for In-Band On-Channel), thus potentially causing interference to adjacent channel stations.  By suppressing the signal on the side of the signal nearest to the adjacent channel station and sending the digital bits out of the other side of the channel, some of this interference could be minimized.  Yet systems capable of such protections have not yet been fully developed.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC recently issued a Notice of Inquiry, asking if it should consider mandating that XM Sirius receivers also be able to receive HD Radio or to play material from other audio sources.  This proceeding was promised as part of the FCC's approval of the XM-Sirius merger, as a potential way of ensuring that competition in the audio entertainment marketplace remained robust after the merger.  While the Commission required that XM Sirius allow manufacturers to build receivers that could incorporate HD Radio or other audio entertainment technologies (e.g. MP3 player, Internet connectivity, etc), it did not require that any receiver contain such technology.  This proceeding asks if any sort of requirement along these lines should be adopted.  It also seeks information generally about the audio entertainment marketplace.

Specific questions posed by the FCC in this proceeding include:

• Would a mandate promote lower prices and more choices for consumers of audio entertainment?
• Should it be expected that audio devices with multiple audio entertainment capabilities will be developed without an FCC mandate?
• Would an XM Sirius radio with HD Radio capability promote dissemination of state-level EAS messages?
• How well has HD Radio been developing on its own?
• Would multi-function devices facilitate the development of HD Radio?
• Are such devices necessary for the development of HD Radio?
• What other public interest benefits, if any, would result from such a combinations?
• What technological issues would there be in multifunction devices (e.g. manufacturing cost, battery life, size and weight, interference, etc.)?
• If a requirement was adopted, how long would any required phase-in period need to be?
• Should any requirement cover all radios, or just certain types (e.g. in-car, portables, home receivers, etc)?
• Does the FCC have the authority to adopt any such mandate?

That last issue, the FCC statutory authority to adopt rules in this area, is a general question considered in several other recent FCC proceedings (for instance, see out post here).  Just because the FCC might think that something is a good idea does not mean that it can adopt rules in an area.  Rules requiring that equipment manufacturers take certain actions have run into problems in the Court of Appeals in the recent past as the FCC has only limited jurisdiction over such manufacturers, so any mandate here will need careful justification or perhaps even a specific statutory mandate.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

The Digital Television conversion has allowed the FCC to reclaim significant portions of the TV spectrum for wireless and public safety uses - television channels above 51 will no longer be used for broadcast TV at the end of the analog to digital transition.  But, as part of the FCC's Diversity proceeding (see our post here), a proposal dealing with the other end of the TV spectrum is being considered - whether to remove Channels 5 and 6 from the television band and instead use these channels for FM radio.  These channels are adjacent to the lower end of the FM band.  Because of this adjacency, the existence of TV Channel 6 in a market can limit the use of the lowest end of the FM band (used for Noncommercial Educational stations) to avoid interference to the TV station.  Similarly, Channel 6's audio can be heard on many FM radio receivers, a fact that has recently been used by some LPTV operators to use their stations to deliver an audio service that can be received by FM radios (see our post on this subject).  In comments filed in the Diversity proceeding, parties have taken positions all across the spectrum - from television operators who have opposed using the channel for anything but television, to those suggesting that the channels be entirely cleared of television users and turned into a digital radio service.  Proposals also suggest using the band for LPFM operations, and even for clearing the AM band by assigning AM operators to this band to commence new digital operations.

In comments that our firm submitted on behalf of a group of noncommercial FM radio licensees who also rebroadcast their signals on a number of FM translator stations, we suggested that Channel 6 could provide a home for LPFM operations, instead of trying to squeeze those stations into the existing FM band.  There are currently proposals to squeeze more LPFM stations into the FM band by supplanting some FM translators (see our summary of some of those proposals here).  In these comments in the Diversity proceeding, we pointed out that, as there are currently radios on the market that receive 87.9, 87.7 and even 87.5, using these three channels for LPFM service would provide an immediate home to these stations, and far more opportunity for than LPFM would have in the already congested FM band.  These opportunities would exist even in most of the largest radio markets in the country, except in the handful of markets where a Channel 6 television station will continue to operate after the digital transition.  By adopting this proposal, the service that would be provided by FM translators would not be threatened. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

The FCC has released a Public Notice announcing its approval of the XM and Sirius satellite radio merger.  The public notice is only two pages long, with a four page appendix providing very brief summaries of the conditions imposed on the two companies which a majority of the Commissioners found sufficient to protect consumers from harm from the merged entity.  The full text of the decision, providing the full reasoning of the Commission on its approval, has not yet been released.  Until it is, the impact for broadcast ownership and the treatment of broadcast consolidation set by the precedent of this decision remains unclear.

The conditions placed on the merger and outlined by the decision include some surprising ones beneficial to broadcasters, including that the merged company not use its terrestrial repeaters to originate local broadcasts and that the company not enter into exclusive agreements precluding the broadcast of local sporting events by over-the-air broadcast stations.  The decision also imposed price caps on the service for three years, and set out conditions to open the manufacturing of satellite radio receivers to more companies and prohibiting any restriction on combining the radio receiver with other audio devices including digital radio receivers.  No condition requiring that satellite radio receivers be capable of picking up over-the-air digital radio ("HD Radio") was imposed, though the FCC promised to issue a Notice of Inquiry to review that issue.  Specific programming channels will be made available for noncommercial educational use and for leased access.  The FCC also made clear that satellite radio will be subject to the FCC's EEO rules.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a proposal filed by many of the nation's largest radio broadcasters, a request was made that the FCC allow FM stations operating with the HD Radio (or "IBOC system" - for "In Band On Channel" as the digital signal is transmitted on the same channel as the current analog signal) to increase power by up to 10 dbu, which is said to be less than 10% of a station's authorized analog power.  The proposal cites the power increase as one that, in most cases, can be made without interference to adjacent channel stations.  In certain instances, particularly those of grandfathered short-spaced stations, only certain lesser power increases would be permitted under this proposal.  The proponents contend that the increased power will help stations replicate their analog service and increase building penetration so that the service can be received inside large office buildings and even in parking garages.  The proponents submit engineering studies that support their position.

I have worded this post very cautiously.  We write about many significant and controversial issues on this blog - e.g. indecency, music royalties, multiple ownership rules - but the most animated responses we usually receive is when a post deals with HD Radio.  While we have written about many broadcasters who have adopted the HD radio system and are using the multicast ability to bring new services to their communities, we recognize that there are many critics of the programming on HD Radio, or the design of the tuning functions on the radio, or for the lack of the consumer "value proposition" for the purchase of a new radio required to receive the digital transmissions.  However, we have found that there are also many who feel vehemently that there are engineering issues with the service.  So we post this notice of the FCC filing, and look forward to the response that we will receive.

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

According to an article yesterday in Broadcasting and Cable Online, and another article in the New York Times today, Chairman Martin of the FCC is looking to complete the multiple ownership proceeding (which we summarized here) by the middle of December.  According to the Times article, the Chairman is looking for relaxation of the current newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rules - the prohibition on the ownership of a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same market.  What the Chairman has in mind for the rules regarding local radio and television ownership is less clear.  But, no matter what is planned, forces are already mustering to attempt to delay the Commission action.

Contemplating a December action is certainly aggressive.  The Commission had promised to complete the two sets of public hearings - one on the ownership rules and a second on the localism provided by broadcasters - before reaching conclusions in this case.  Each set of hearings still has a final hearing to be held.  The Commission has yet to officially announce the date and location of either of these final hearings - though press reports have indicated that the Commission may look to hold one at the end of the month on the West Coast, and the final hearing in Washington, DC in early November.  In addition, the Commission has just received the final set of comments on the proposals to foster minority ownership, which the Third Circuit had indicated was to be part of the analysis in this proceeding when it stayed the effect of most of the Commission's 2003 multiple ownership decision and remanded that decision to the FCC for further consideration.  With the comments on minority ownership just having been filed, and comments on the Commission's own studies on the effect of consolidation not not due until next week (see details), and replies due early next month, does the Commission really have time to consider the issues raised in these comments in this proceeding and reach a December decision, or will some issues need to be delayed for independent consideration?  Seldom has the FCC finished any proceeding within a month and a half of the end of the public comment period - much less an important and controversial one like multiple ownership.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Last Friday, the rules on over-the-air digital radio for AM and FM stations - the IBOC system or, as it is commonly known, HD Radio - became effective.  The most immediate effect of the new rules, which we summarized here, is the ability of AM stations to operate using the IBOC system at night.  The Commission determined that such operation offered more benefits than any interference it might create.  The final rules also allowed stations to begin digital operations - and multicast operations - on a permanent basis without prior FCC approval.  As these rules take effect, some stations are beginning to look to the multicast channels to provide new programming opportunities.

NPR has, in many ways, led the efforts to utilize digital radio for multicast operations.  In today's Washington Post, there is an article about the city's NPR affiliate, WAMU, which has recently announced plans to take its multicast operations to a new level.  WAMU had in the past programmed a substantial amount of bluegrass music, a local DC favorite.  Over time, that programming had been reduced as the station broadcast more and more talk programming.  The station had moved bluegrass to a full time Internet radio stream, and has now announced plans to move all of the remaining bluegrass and roots music programming (which had been limited to Sundays) to one of its IBOC digital multicast streams - and to include live announcers during at least some of this digital programming.  The Post article quotes the station manager as saying that the local Best Buy now knows that HD Radio is different from the service that XM or Sirius provide.

Continue Reading...

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

At long last, the Commission's Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making regarding Digital Audio Radio or HD Radio, which was adopted by the Commission on March 22, 2007, has been published in the Federal Register establishing the effective date for the new digital rules as September 14th.  As we reported earlier, the Order is aimed at promoting the ultimate transition of terrestrial radio broadcasting to all-digital and, among other things, permits the following:

• FM stations may commence digital operations without prior authority from the FCC and may use separate antennas for the digital and analog signals without the need for an STA.
  
• Stations may operate in extended digital hybrid mode, permitting additional capacity.
  
• AM stations may operate during nighttime hours.
  
• FM translators, boosters, and LPFM stations may operate digitally.

These new operational rules will become effective on September 14, and along with them the following rules regarding policy issues will also go into effect:

• Stations that chose to broadcast in digital must provide a free digital stream that simulcasts the programming of the analog channel.
  
• Stations have the flexibility to provide multiple programming streams, provide data services, or provide the highest quality audio service.
  
• Stations may lease the unused portion of their radio spectrum to third parties.
  
• The existing rules, such as EAS, political, sponsorship ID, and station identification, are extended to all the free streams of programming provided by a station.

Finally, publication of the Order and FNPRM in the Federal Register also establishes the dates for filing comments in response to the Commission's broad array of proposals posited by the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making.  The FNPRM contains specific proposals to adopt new rules regulating the public interest obligations of radio broadcasters. These proposals include the possible requirements for a standardized disclosure form for a stations public service programs, limits on a station's ability to originate programming from locations other than the station's main studio, and possible limitations on the current ability of stations to operate without manned studios. Comments for this proceeding are due on or before October 15, 2007, and Reply Comments are due on or before November 13, 2007. 

A full summary of the new rules, as well as the proposals contained in the further rule making can be found in our earlier blog here. 

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

We've recently written much about Internet radio, digital radio, digital television and all sorts of new technologies to electronically deliver media content.  But the grandfather of all electronic media - AM radio - still provides significant service.  A recent Petition for Rulemaking suggests certain technical changes to increase the service provided by these stations. In particular, the proposed changes would allow longer, higher powered operations by stations that are forced to reduce power or cease operating at local sunset.  A summary of the petition prepared by the engineer who drafted it can be found here.  It proposes that AM stations who are forced to reduce power at sunset be allowed to operate with higher Post-Sunset Authority.  It also suggests that the power allotted AM stations for Post Sunset and Pre-Sunrise Authority  be computed based on the location and time of sunset and sunrise at the location of the stations which the local station could interfere with, rather than requiring reduced power when during the hours of darkness at the location of the station that has to reduce power.  These changes are particularly important in the shorter daylight hours in the upcoming winter months.  The FCC recently gave public notice of the filing of this petition, and comments can be filed at the FCC until August 20, 2007.  The Commission will evaluate these comments and determine if a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is warranted, at which time further public comment would be taken.

This proposal is but one of a host of current proposals pending for the AM service.  A few months ago, we wrote about a proposal for easing proofs of performance for AM stations, and before that, we wrote several posts, here and here, about the long-pending proposal filed by the NAB seeking to allow AM stations to use FM translators.  While initial comments have been filed on the Petitions for Rulemaking in these matters, neither of these proposals has yet reached a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  Much further advanced is the FCC's Order allowing AM stations to operate digitally at all hours - which, as we wrote in May, was released two months ago after being originally adopted at the FCC's March meeting.  However, the digital order does not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register which, for some unexplained reason, has not yet occurred.  And many AM stations are waiting for this publication so that they can begin full-time digital operations, and others wait for these other actions to help this oldest of electronic media outlets. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Should artists waive their rights to performance royalties in order to get airplay on broadcast or Internet radio stations? That questions has come to the fore based on a click-through agreement that Clear Channel included on a website set up to allow independent bands to upload their music for consideration for airplay by its stations. While artist groups, including the Future of Music Coalition, condemned that action, there are always two sides to the story, as was made clear in a segment broadcast on NPR’s Morning Edition, in which I offered some comments. As set forth in that segment, artists may be perfectly willing to allow unrestricted use of a song or two in order to secure the promotional value that may result from the airplay that might be received. For the broadcaster or Internet site seeking such permission, getting all rights upfront may well be an important consideration in deciding whether or not to feature a song – especially in the digital media.

Critics of the waiver made much of the fact that the site was set up at least partially to meet Clear Channel’s informal commitment made as part of the FCC payola settlement to feature more independent music, even though that commitment was not a formal part of the settlement agreement.  (See our summary of the payola settlement, here).  Even to the extent that the informal commitments made by the big broadcasters encompassed making time available to more independent musicians, the critics ignore the fact that the companies do not need any waiver of any sound recording performance royalty in connection with the over-the-air broadcast of those songs, as there currently is no public performance right in a sound recording for over the air broadcasting (though artists and record lables are now pushing for such a royalty, see our story here). Thus, the use of the waiver was only for the digital world – which was not covered by the FCC's jurisdiction over payola promises or the promises to increase the use of independent music. So, effectively, the company is being chastised for trying to minimize their costs on giving the music even greater circulation through their digital platforms than they initially promised.

Continue Reading...

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

In our recent summary of the Commission's order on Digital Radio, we wrote about the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that raised specific proposals to adopt new rules regulating the public interest obligations of radio broadcasters.  These proposals included the possible requirements for a standardized disclosure form for a stations public service programs, limits on a station's ability to originate programming from locations other than the station's main studio, and possible limitations on the current ability of stations to operate without manned studios.  A recent Commission decision reminds television broadcasters that there is another proceeding - one six years old - that proposes many of the same restrictions on television broadcasters.  Does the recent mention of this proceeding that so closely parallels the recent radio proposals indicate that some action may soon be forthcoming on the TV proceeding?

The TV proceeding was mentioned in an FCC decision released last week rejecting Petitions to Deny that had been filed against a number of license renewal applications for television stations in Wisconsin and Illinois alleging that the stations had not adequately served the public interest through the broadcast of issue responsive programming, especially programming covering election issues.  In rejecting those Petitions, the FCC stated that its ability to second guess the editorial discretion of a licensee was limited by the First Amendment and by the Communications Act's prohibition against broadcast censorship.  In this case, the FCC said that the showing made by the Petitioner was not sufficient to demonstrate that the stations had not served the public interest of their communities.  However, the decision noted that the Commission was considering quantitative standards for evaluating the public service of broadcast licensees, citing to the long-pending rulemaking proceeding, and implying that the evaluation of these licensees might have been at least somewhat different had these proposed standards been in place.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today issued the long-awaited text of its decision on Digital Audio radio - the so-called IBOC system.  As we have written, while adopted at its March meeting, the text of the decision has been missing in action.  With the release of the decision, which is available here, the effective date of the new rules can be set in the near future - 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.  With the Order, the Commission also released its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, addressing a host of new issues - some not confined to digital radio, but instead affecting the obligations of all radio operations.

The text provides the details for many of the actions that were announced at the March meeting, including authorizing the operation of AM stations in a digital mode at night, and the elimination of the requirements that stations ask permission for experimental operations before commencing multicast operations.  The Order also permits the use of dual antennas - one to be used solely for digital use - upon notification to the FCC.  In addition, the order addresses several other matters not discussed at the meeting, as set forth below. 

Continue Reading...

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

Two long awaited broadcast items seem to be missing in action at the FCC. Both the final rules on digital radio ("HD radio") and the Commission’s Notice of Proposed rulemaking on using FM translators to fill in gaps of the signals of AM stations, while expected quite a while ago, have still not been released by the FCC. The digital radio item, adopting rules on digital radio, eliminating the need to file for experimental authority for multi-channel FM operations and allowing AM stations to operate digitally at night, was adopted by the FCC at its meeting in March, yet the final text of the decision still hasn’t been released.  As the text has not been released, the effective date of the new rules has not been set.  Those AM stations ready to kick on their nighttime digital operations continue to wait.

As we explained in our previous posting on this matter, here, the digital radio order also contains a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, addressing issues such as the public interest obligations of broadcasters on their multicast digital channels. That was one of the items that was supposedly delayed the action that finally occurred at the March meeting, and perhaps it is delaying the release of the text of the order in this proceeding

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a recent press release, Clear Channel Communications announced an agreement with mSpot Radio to provide the programming of over 100 Clear Channel radio stations to mobile phone users.  Interestingly, this announcement comes in he thick of the battle over the new royalty rates for the streaming of music on the Internet.  In recent pleadings seeking rehearing of  the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board setting those rates, SoundExchange (the collective that collects the royalties on behalf of Copyright owners and musicians) raised only one issue.  The sole issue on which SoundExchange requested clarification was whether the royalties that were recently adopted would apply to mobile phone transmissions of programming containing music. 

A brave move in light of the current royalty decision - one perhaps reflecting the desire to have radio programming everywhere a listener wants it, or one that foresees revenues from the wireless phone companies compensating the parties for the costs involved.  It will be interesting to see how this roll out of radio stations on mobile phones progresses.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Commission today adopted a Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making regarding Digital Audio Radio or HD Radio.  While the text of the Order has not yet been released, the following details were announced at the Commission’s meeting.  A copy of the News Release issued today is available here.  The Commission stated that its Order is aimed at promoting the ultimate transition of terrestrial radio broadcasting to all-digital, however, it has not imposed a mandatory transition to digital-only operations at this time. 

Importantly, the Order streamlines the process for commencing digital operations and permits the following:

• FM stations may commence digital operations without prior authority from the FCC and may use separate antennas for the digital and analog signals without the need for an STA.
• Stations may operate in extended digital hybrid mode, permitting additional capacity.
• AM stations may operate during nighttime hours.
• FM translators, boosters, and LPFM stations may operate digitally.

With regard to policy issues, the Commission adopted rules for digital radio that are similar to those that exist today for digital television. Specifically:

• Stations that chose to broadcast in digital must provide a free digital stream that simulcasts the programming of the analog channel.
• Stations have the flexibility to provide multiple programming streams, provide data services, or provide the highest quality audio service.
• Stations may lease the unused portion of their radio spectrum to third parties.
• The existing rules, such as EAS, political, sponsorship ID, and station identification, are extended to all the free streams of programming provided by a station.

Again, notably, the Commission has not imposed a mandatory transition to digital operations, nor has it elected to allow digital-only stations. Rather, stations must retain their Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In July, we wrote about that the FCC was about to adopt final rules for over-the-air digital radio.  But these expected final rules were pulled off the agenda of the FCC July meeting, and they remained in limbo for the last six months.  Finally, today, the FCC announced that it will consider these final rules at its open meeting next week.  The rules have reportedly been held up while considering requests by the Democratic Commissioners that specific public interest obligations be attached to any multi-cast digital streams that a broadcaster may offer.

But the rules will also consider interference issues, and may finally authorize AM digital operations at night.  The rules should also give permanent authority to all digital radio operations which have, up to this time, been conducted under experimental or temporary authority.  It will be interesting to see if the Commission will in fact finally reach a resolution of these issues at its March 22 meeting, and how they will resolve the question of the public interest obligations of digital broadcasters - probably through the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that is also on the agenda for next week's meeting.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

At the NAB Broadcast Leadership Conference in Washington today, Congressman Ed Markey, Chairman of the House of Representatives Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, announced that the subcommittee would hold hearings on the state of radio.  These hearings would examine not only over-the-air radio, but also Internet radio, HD radio, satellite radio and other related businesses.  This comprehensive review seems to be different from the previously announced hearing by the new Congressional task force on antitrust issues which had announced plans to review the proposed XM-Sirius merger.

While Congressional hearings often lead to nothing other than an airing of the issues and information for future legislative efforts, they do indicate areas of interest that could eventually mature into Congressional legislative proposals.  A comprehensive hearing on radio issues could end up providing Congress with the information that could send it in several directions - perhaps weighing in on multiple ownership issues or on the digital radio transition, and could even prompt Congress to review any action taken on Internet radio royalties.  As we've written before, the Copyright Royalty Board is expected to release its ruling on the royalties for 2006-2010 in the next week.  The direction of this Congressional hearing, when it occurs, will be worth watching.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By now, everyone knows that XM and Sirius have announced plans to merge into a single nationwide satellite radio service provider.  This plan is, of course, subject to approval of the FCC.  The NAB has announced plans to oppose the merger, and Congress today scheduled hearings on the matter, to be held next week.  The obvious issues to be considered by the Department of Justice and the FCC will be whether the merger will be anti-competitive and whether it will serve the public interest.  But there are numerous other legal issues, possibly affecting other FCC proceedings, that may well come out of the consideration of this merger.

For instance, the merger raises the question of whether satellite radio is a unique market that should not be allowed to consolidate into a monopoly, or whether there is a broader "market" for audio programming encompassing not only satellite radio, but also traditional over-the-air radio, iPods, Internet radio, and other forms of audio entertainment.  While the opponents of the merger may argue that satellite radio is a unique market, such a finding may affect the broadcast multiple ownership proceeding, where some broadcasters are advancing arguments similar to the satellite companies in hopes that the FCC will loosen multiple ownership restrictions. 

Another issue that seemingly will be raised by the merger is how important a la carte programming is to FCC Chairman Martin.  The Chairman has been pushing both satellite and cable television companies to allow consumers to purchase only the channels that they want rather than whole packages of channels.  He has argued that consumers could save money by buying only the channels that they want, and consumers could also avoid programing that they don't want (like adult oriented content).  Service providers have countered that forcing the unbundling of program tiers will make it economically unfeasible to offer many of the more niche program channels.  Published reports indicate that part of the merger proposal to be advanced by the satellite companies may include a proposal for a la carte pricing.  Thus, this case may show how important the Chairman really believes such offerings are - and whether that offering may help tilt the public interest considerations in the proceeding.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

I've just returned from this year's Radio Advertising Bureau convention in Dallas.  In reflecting on the convention, and in discussing it with many who were in attendance, the consensus was that this was not your Father's RAB convention.  I was surprised by how little discussion there was of traditional radio at the conference.  The sessions weren't the typical ones about how to make the most money from selling your cluster of radio stations in combination, or how to compete against the newspaper or the Yellow Pages, or how to get the most out of your sales staff.  Instead, virtually every session talked about leveraging your digital assets.  There were discussions of using your website, streaming, podcasts, text messaging, and  audio on cell phones to increase the financial performance of broadcast stations.  There were discussions of HD Radio and some of the opportunities that service might offer if and when it starts getting consumer acceptance.  All in all, it seemed as if radio (or at least those planning the convention sessions) had received the message that the industry needs to take advantage of its ability to drive traffic to new technologies, and drive that traffic to new media sources that stations themselves create. 

In the past, there seemed to be a fear about discussing these new technologies.  It was almost as if the technologies weren't discussed, they'd go away.  But at the RAB, and at many of the conventions of the state broadcast associations that I have attended over the last year, broadcasters seemed to have decided that they need to embrace the new media.  While the old fear had been that these new media sources would cannibalize the current broadcast audience, everyone seems to now recognize that the audience is going to use these technologies no matter what - so the broadcaster might as well be the one cannibalizing its own audience.

While legal and regulatory issues do not tend to be the primary topic of discussion at the RAB Conference, as in almost any broadcast discussion, they do come up.  Here too, the discussion was digital.  For instance, in the speech by NAB President David Rehr outlining the priorities of the NAB for the year, only the effort to authorize FM translators for AM stations (which we wrote about here), was not a "digital" topic.  The other issues discussed by Mr. Rehr included pushing the FCC for final rules for digital radio, monitoring the actions of satellite radio companies XM and Sirius, and finally, the issues that arise out of the Perform Act.  The Perform Act is a copyright bill introduced in the Senate last month that would affect digital royalties for music used on the Internet, place restrictions on services promoting the promotion and sale by digital music providers of devices that disaggregate songs contained in a digital stream, and require copy protection technologies to be employed by digital music providers.  Hardly the exciting stuff that makes for an applause line in a convention speech.  While we will write more about the Perform Act in a separate posting, the major concern for broadcasters is that the sponsor, California Senator Diane Feinstein, suggested in her remarks that the performance royalty on sound recordings which now applies to satellite radio and webcasting (which we have written about many times including here), should also apply to broadcast radio.  And that is a big enough issue - one that could hit broadcasters directly in the pocketbook - that it demands the industry's attention in every forum. 

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

Two recent decisions show a stark divide in the approach of the Democratic and Republican FCC Commissioners which may indicate the difficulty of reaching consensus on any of the pressing issues which will be facing the FCC in this new year.  The FCC decision on the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth, approved by FCC action on Friday, was a result of AT&T throwing in the towel, surrendering to the demands of the two Democratic Commissioners who were seeking greater consumer protections before voting to approve the acquisition.  In that case, as one of the Republican Commissioners had removed himself from consideration of the matter due to a conflict from a previous job, the Democrats had an effective veto over any FCC decision. 

In the decision reached right before Christmas, requiring local municipalities to act quickly on new video franchise applications and restricting the conditions that could be put on such approvals, the Commissioners again split on party lines.  The three Republicans argued that the restrictions were necessary to encourage the entry of new competition in the multi-channel video world, resulting in the potential of lower prices to consumers.  Democrats, on the other hand, contended that the rules were beyond the FCC's power.  Beyond what some might see as the role reversal represented by the votes (the Republicans looking out for consumer interests while the Democrats were protecting states rights, with Commissioner Adelstein even quoting Ronald Reagan in his dissent), one wonders why these positions broke down on party line.  If the proposal really did exceed the Commission's power, shouldn't Republicans and Democrats alike refrain from acting?  And if the result of this action was really a benefit to consumers, shouldn't Commissioners of both parties have looked for ways that the rules could be adopted within legal bounds?

The seeming inability of the Commissioners to reach consensus on most big issues does not bode well for prompt action on some of the major broadcast issues facing the FCC.  We've already seen a decision on adopting final standards on digital radio (including authorizing nighttime digital operations for AM stations) postponed for over 6 months, reportedly based on arguments over the public service obligations of multicast channels.  And how will the contentious multiple ownership debate be resolved?  And what will happen should one of the Republican Commissioners leave the Commission during the course of the year?  It certainly will be interesting to see these issues play out during the course of this new year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As 2006 hurtles to a close and 2007 looms on the horizon, two quick reminders about a couple of upcoming effective dates.

First and foremost, as of December 31, 2006, the Commission's Emergency Alert System ("EAS") rules will be extended to digital services.  Specifically, as of December 31st, digital television, digital cable, digital radio (including LPFMs), and satellite digital radio, will be required to comply with Part 11 of the Commission's Rules, which require participation in all national EAS activation, and periodic testing of EAS equipment.  More information regarding the EAS rules for digital services can be found in our earlier blog of November 21, below.   

Second, the changes to the FCC's Children's Programming Rules, including the rules governing DTV multi-casting, become effective January 2, 2007.  These new rules are summarized in our earlier entry of October 24, below, and in our recent Bulletin.  Most notably, the rules affirmed the requirement that DTV stations broadcasting multiple streams of programming must increase the amount of kid vid programming in proportion to the amount of additional free video provided.  Accordingly, DTV stations that are multi-casting programming on multiple streams should ensure that they have enough children's programming lined up by January 2nd to meet the new requirements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Just a reminder that as of December 31, 2006, the Commission's EAS rules will be extended to most digital services.  Specifically, as of December 31st, digital television, digital cable, digital radio (including LPFMs), and satellite digital radio, will be required to comply with Part 11 of the Commission's Rules, which require participation in all national EAS activation.  Furthermore, like their analog brethren, digital services will be required to conduct monthly and weekly tests of the EAS procedures consistent with the Commission's Rules. 

Digital television and digital radio airing multiple streams of programming are required to make EAS messages available to viewers and listeners on all program streams, including both free and subscription based channels.  Stations airing multiple programming streams have a bit of flexibility to determine how the message will be provided over the multiple streams.  For example, DTV stations and HD Radio stations can either transmit the emergency signal separately over each stream, or carry the message on one stream and force tune the other streams to that main channel. 

Participation in state and local Emergency Alert Systems by digital television and digital radio remains voluntary, but if stations elect to participate in such activations, they must comply with the Part 11 EAS rules.  Also, it is noted that  Direct Broadcast Satellite television has been given slightly longer to comply with the EAS rules, and must comply with these rules by May 31, 2007. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As we reported on July 7 and 17, the FCC had intended to issue final rules on Ibiquity digital radio standard in July, but suddenly pulled the item off their agenda.  Currently, all broadcast stations operating in a digital mode are doing so on temporary authorizations pursuant to interim rules, and multicast operations are conducted pursuant to experimental authorizations. 

Rumors at the time, reported in our blog entries, attributed the delay to attempts to work out issues over the public interest obligations of broadcasters on their multicast channels.  Today, at the annual convention of the Maine Association of Broadcasters, an FCC representative, while not confirming that this was the basis of the delay, did say that there were requests by public interest groups for some quantification of the public interest obligations for these multicast channels, and also said that there was a pending proposal that leasing a digital subchannel to a community organization could be one way of meeting such obligations.

In thinking about this issue, it seems to me that the imposition of strict public interest obligations on these multicast channels may well impede their development.  These channels may be used in ways that are far different than traditional broadcast stations.  For instance, a station could use some of its multicast spectrum for an "all traffic and weather channel" (like that offered by satellite radio), or an all local sports channel.  Uses like these may develop as a way to give local audiences programming that they may want on demand, as a way to compete with satellite or on-line offerings.  If there are strict public interest obligations, requiring specified amounts of news or public affairs programs, the development of these innovative uses of the broadcast spectrum might be delayed.  The FCC should tread carefully, as they don't want to stifle the development of digital radio - or over-the-air radio's ability to compete with new technologies. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced recently that it has provided $7.74 million in grants to assist 85 public radio stations in their transition to digital operations.  This announcement is interesting, coming as it does only a week after Communications Daily reported on August 16 that CPB engineers were finding that HD Radio was providing the coverage that was initially expected.  The press report indicated that CPB was discovering that HD Radio was providing coverage to only about 60% of a typical FM station's analog service area, and that it was causing more interference issues than had been expected.  CPB was planning additional studies to look into these issues.

In discussing HD Radio implementation issues with broadcasters over the last few months, I've heard similar reports about coverage.  I've also heard troubling reports of interference to adjacent channel FM stations from HD operations - especially from multicast operations.  The interference is usually caused to weaker FM stations.  These were stations had listenable signals in a market that were no longer listenable in some areas after a station on an adjacent channel began digital operations (and it has not just been on first adjacent channels).  While these problems can apparently be addressed by the use of filters by the digital station, the levels of interference are often below the FCC prohibited levels of out-of-band emissions, so cases have arisen where there have been disputes about the resolution of these problems.  Of course, as the stations experiencing the interference had weak signals to begin with, the problem could be caused by issues other than the new digital operations.  It will be interesting to see if CPB confirms that these alleged cases of digital interference were in fact caused by the new digital radio operations.  And it will also be interesting to see if the FCC's digital radio order, when it is finally released (see our July 17 posting on the expected release of the FCC order on "final" digital radio rules), provides any process for addressing any such complaints of interference.

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On Thursday, July 13, the FCC was supposed to consider the formal rules for digital radio.  As I wrote on July 7, AM and FM stations operating digitally are currently doing so under temporary rules.  The Commission was supposed to resolve the many issues surrounding digital radio at this meeting.

The meeting was to begin at 9:30, but the appointed hour came and went with no meeting. Eventually, it was announced that the meeting would be moved to 11 AM and then, just before 11, the FCC announced that they had pulled the digital radio item from the agenda.

It has been widely reported that the item would be considered "on circulation," meaning that the Commissioners would simply review the item in their own offices and cast their vote on paper.  When they all had voted, the item would be released.  There would be no need for another meeting.  The rumor was that the order would be out quickly, perhaps even by the end of last week, but we still have not seen it.

So keep your eyes on the trade press to see what the FCC will decide.  But don't hold your breath, as we're still waiting for the text of the FCC's multiple ownership rulemaking - a rulemaking supposedly adopted at the Commission meeting on June 21.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC yesterday announced that it will consider Digital Audio Broadcasting at its meeting on July 13.  While many radio stations are already operating with Ibiquity's In-Band On-Channel operating system, that operation has been under interim rules adopted by the FCC while the Commission continued to consider the permanent rules for the service.  All multicast operations by FM stations have been under "experimental authorizations." 

There remain a number of substantial issues to be considered by the Commission.  Perhaps the most substantial is whether or not to authorize AM nightime digital operations.  Also, there are a number of issues related to other interference issues, as well as the request of the recording industry that the system include an "audio flag" to allow for the adoption of technologies that would prevent copying of music off of the over-the-air digital streams.

Washington rumors have indicated that the Commission's consideration of the rules has been delayed by debates over whether to adopt standards for the public interest obligations of radio broadcasters on their second and third multicast channels.  According to these rumors, the Democratic Commissioners have wanted public interest obligations to be in place before the multicast service was authorized on a permanent basis, while the Republicans had preferred to consider those issues on a seperate track.  Perhaps, with the third Republican commissioner now in place, any impasse which may have existed can now be resolved.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link