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

April is one of those months in which many FCC obligations are triggered for broadcasters. There are the normal obligations, like the Quarterly Issues Programs lists, that need to be in the public file of all broadcast stations, radio and TV, commercial and noncommercial, by April 10. Quarterly Children's television reports are due to be submitted by TV stations. And there are renewal obligations for stations in many states, as well as EEO Public File Reports that are due to be placed in station's public files and on their websites. The end of March also brings the obligation for television broadcasters to start captioning live and near-live programming that is captioned on air, and then rebroadcast on the Internet. Finally, there are comment deadlines on the FCC's proposal to relax the foreign ownership limits, and an FM auction and continuing FM translator filing requirements.

Radio stations in Texas and television stations in Tennessee, Kentucky and Indiana have renewal applications due on April 1. The license renewal pre-filing broadcast announcements for radio stations in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, and for TV stations in Michigan and Ohio, must begin on April 1. All of these stations will be filing their renewals by June 1. EEO Annual Public file reports for all stations (radio and TV) with five or more full-time employees, which are located in Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Delaware, Pennsylvania or Indiana, must be placed in their public files (which are now online for TV broadcasters) by April 1.   Noncommercial radio stations in Texas, and noncommercial TV stations in Tennessee, Indiana Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky must also file their Biennial Ownership Reports by April 1. 

Continue Reading...

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

Earlier today, we wrote about the FCC's reminder that TV broadcasters must, by February 4, complete the upload to their FCC-mandated online public inspection file all materials from the current renewal term that were created prior to the August 2 effective date of the online public inspection file requirement.  We noted that the FCC had not addressed the question of stations that had outstanding renewals from the last renewal term - which could potentially mandate that some stations upload as much as 16 years worth of material to their online files.  Well, today, the FCC issued another decision waiving its rules so that stations only need to post Quarterly Issues Programs lists from the current license term on their online public files - subject to some caveats.

There are certain limits on this waiver.  If the limits are not met, then all Quarterly Issues Programs lists, back to the last granted renewal, have to be posted to the online public file.  The limits include the following:

1. The last renewal cannot have been opposed by a member of the public.
2. The delay in the renewal cannot have been caused by issues relating to the public interest service of the station to its local service area
3. The station must continue to keep the Quarterly Issues Programs lists from the last renewal cycle at the station in a paper public file.

This decision does not relieve stations from all obligations to post materials from prior renewal terms, as described below.

Continue Reading...

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

The six months that the FCC gave to television stations to upload the contents of their paper public files to their new online public file seemed like a long time back in August, when the deadline was announced and the online public file rule became effective. But that deadline is upon us, and the FCC yesterday issued a reminder that television broadcasters (full power and Class A stations) need to have all of their required documents uploaded to their online public file by Monday, February 4.  The 6 month deadline actually falls on the weekend, so the FCC has given stations to the end of the day on Monday to come into compliance. The Commission has even offered to have people at the FCC over the coming weekend to answer questions about the uploading process for all those waiting until the last-minute to comply. 

As made clear in the public notice, no broadcasters need to upload contents of their political files that existed prior to the August 2 effective date of the rules. TV Broadcasters who are affiliates of the Big 4 networks in the Top 50 markets should already be uploading new political file material onto their online files, while other TV broadcasters have until July 1, 2014 before they are subject to the requirement that they upload their new political materials to the online file. In neither case do stations have to upload political file materials that precede the date that the obligation applies to their station. 

Continue Reading...

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

Every year, about this time, I dust off the crystal ball to offer a look at the year ahead to see what Washington has in store for broadcasters. This year, like many in the recent past, Washington will consider important issues for both radio and TV, as well as issues affecting the growing on-line presence of broadcasters. The FCC, Congress, and other government agencies are never afraid to provide their views on what the industry should be doing but, unlike other members of the broadcasters' audience, they can force broadcasters to pay attention to their views by way of new laws and regulations. And there is never a shortage of ideas from Washington as to how broadcasters should act. Some of the issues discussed below are perennials, coming back over and over again on my yearly list (often without resolution), while others are unique to this coming year.

Last week, we published a calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters.  This article looks ahead, providing a preview of what other changes might be coming for broadcasters this year – but these are delivered with no guarantees that the issues listed will in fact bubble up to the top of the FCC's long list of pending items, or that they will be resolved when we predict. But at least this gives you some warning of what might be coming your way this year. Issues unique to radio and TV, and those that could affect the broadcast industry generally, are addressed below.

General Broadcast Issues

 

There are numerous issues before the FCC that affect both radio and television broadcasters, some of which have been pending for many years and are ripe for resolution, while others are raised in proceedings that are just beginning. These include:

 

Multiple Ownership Rules Review: The FCC is very close to resolving its Quadrennial review of its multiple ownership proceeding, officially begun in 2011 with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The rumors were that the FCC was ready to issue an order at the end of 2012 relaxing the rules against the cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers, as well as the radio-television cross-interest prohibitions, while leaving most other rules in place. TV Joint Sales Agreements were also rumored to be part of the FCC's considerations – perhaps making some or all of these agreements attributable. But even these modest changes in the rules are now on hold, while parties submit comments on the impact of any relaxation of the ownership rules on minority ownership. Still, we would expect that some decision on changes to the ownership rules should be expected at some point this year – probably early in the year. 

Continue Reading...

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

Three broadcast items are tentatively scheduled for the next FCC meeting, to be held on April 27, according to the tentative agenda released today.  In one expected action, though perhaps moving more quickly than many thought possible, the FCC has indicated that it will adopt an Order in its proceeding requiring TV broadcasters to place and maintain their public files on the Internet.  A second broadcast item will adopt rules for channel sharing by TV broadcasters as part of the plan for incentive auctions to entice TV broadcasters to give up some of their spectrum for wireless broadband use.  Finally, the FCC proposes to adopt a NPRM on whether to amend current policies so as to permit noncommercial broadcasters from interrupting their regular programming to raise funds for organizations other than the station itself.

The first item is to determine whether to require that the broadcasters maintain an Online Public Inspection File, is a controversial issue about which we wrote last week. The proposal for the online file grew out of the FCC's Future of Media Report (renamed the Report on the Information Needs of Communities when it was released last year, see our summary here).  In that same report, it was suggested that the FCC relax rules applicable to noncommercial broadcasters that limit their on-air fundraising for third-parties, if that fundraising interrupts the normal course of programming.  The Future of Media Report suggests that this restriction be relaxed so that noncommercial broadcasters be able to do block programming from time to time to raise funds for other noncommercial entities

Continue Reading...

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

While rumors are flying that the FCC is rushing to adopt its proposals to require that TV stations put their public inspection files online (see our summary of the proposals here), both the FCC and public interest groups are targeting the public files of television stations - looking to copy some or all of those files.  Rumors are that the FCC inspected the public files of all television stations in at least one city - and asked for copies of the complete files to be produced at the FCC within a day or two, in some cases requiring the copying of several file cabinets worth of material very quickly.  Whether this inspection is a one-shot deal or the start of a program to audit the files of TV stations across the country is unclear.  At the same time, public interest groups have been urging their members to inspect TV station public files across the nation, to copy parts of those files, and to post the information that they collect online.  TV stations across the country need to be prepared for these inspections.

Why these actions now?  Some may think that the FCC is just conducting a random audit, while others may suggest that the demand for complete public files is just a fact-finding mission as part of its rulemaking process.  The more suspicious of broadcasters may think that this represents the FCC sending a message that the online public file is coming, and stations may find it easier to accept the online file rather than facing these demands for the instant reproduction of their entire files to be inspected at leisure in Washington. 

Continue Reading...

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

With April Fool's Day only a few days away, we need to repeat our annual reminder that broadcasters need to be careful with any on-air pranks, jokes or other jokes prepared especially for the day.  While a little fun is OK, remember that the FCC does have a rule against on-air hoaxes - and, of any day in the year, April 1 is the day that the broadcaster is most at risk.  The FCC's rule against broadcast hoaxes, Section 73.1217 of the Commission's Rules, prevents stations from running any information about a "crime or catastrophe" on the air, if the broadcaster (1) knows the information to be false, (2) it is reasonably foreseeable that the broadcast of the material will cause substantial public harm and (3) public harm is in fact caused.  Public harm is defined as "direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties."  Air a program deemed a hoax, and expect to be fined by the FCC.

This rule was adopted in the early 1990s after several incidents that were well-publicized in the broadcast industry, including one case where the on-air personalities at a station claimed that there was someone at the station who had taken them hostage, and another case where a station broadcast bulletins that announced that a local trash dump had exploded like a volcano, and was spewing burning trash around the local neighborhood.  In both cases, first responders were notified about the non-existent emergencies, actually responded to the notices that listeners called in, and were prevented from doing their duties responding to real emergencies.  In light of these sorts of incidents, the FCC adopted its prohibition against broadcast hoaxes.  But, as we've reminded broadcasters before, the FCC hoax rule is not the only reason to be wary on April 1. 

Continue Reading...

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

Yesterday, the FCC issued fines totaling $52,000 against four Class A television stations for belatedly filing their FCC Form 398 Children’s Television Programming Reports. The stations, each of which had missed at least a couple of years’ worth of Children’s Reports, were also fined for failing to timely place the reports in their public inspection files.  (If the Reports were not prepared and filed on time, then they similarly weren’t placed in the file at the right time).  The forfeitures all have essentially the same set of facts as this one.  The Commission had previously notified the licensees that their stations were missing Form 398 Reports and offered the “opportunity” for the station to avoid the issue by simply voluntarily reverting to a secondary LPTV station. While this would have potentially avoided the issue of the missing Children’s Television Reports, it would have left the stations as secondary facilities and without the primary status protection afforded to Class A television stations and full power TV stations. Such protection is critically important in light of the recent grant of authority for incentive auctions, as only Class A and full power TV stations are allowed to participate in the auction and are explicitly protected in the legislation. (See our earlier discussion regarding the incentive auction authority here.) LPTV stations, which did not receive such protection in the statute, are simply secondary services meaning that they can be moved or modified as the Commission sees fit. That authority will likely come in handy if and when it comes time for the FCC to repack the television spectrum, as it will have greater flexibility in moving or changing protections for LPTV stations.

Rather than accepting the chance to revert to low power status, the stations in these cases corrected their oversight and filed the missing Form 398 reports.  Despite responding to the Commisison's earlier letters and following up to file the missing reports, however, the FCC nonetheless issued the hefty forfeitures. Recently, we wrote about a number of “Show Cause Orders" issued by the FCC directing 16 Class A television stations to respond and demonstrate why the stations shouldn’t be downgraded to LPTV status (see our earlier post here). The stations subject to those Show Cause orders apparently failed to respond to the FCC’s letter about missing children’s reports.  With yesterday's forfeiture, it appears there is no good choice for a station that overlooked the obligation to file the children's reports, and these fines serve as an important reminder of the obligations of Class A television stations. 

As we noted in our post last week, all Class A licensees would be well advised to review their FCC compliance efforts to avoid falling victim to the FCC's spectrum clearance process.  The FCC has stated clearly that Class A licensees are required to comply with many full power TV requirements, including the need to maintain a main studio and a public inspection file, to comply with children's programming requirements, political programming requirements, station identification requirements and Emergency Alert System rules. Failure to comply with any of these requirements could result in loss of Class A status.  While the fines issues yesterday are hefty, losing the station's Class A primary status could be even more costly. 

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

In the wake of Commission's rejection of hundreds of closed captioning waivers last year, many small television producers are now seeking new waivers for relief from the Commission's television closed captioning rules.  Last October, the Commission overturned nearly 300 "economically burdensome" captioning waivers on the grounds that the FCC had failed to apply the correct standard of review and had failed to follow the proper procedure for considering the requests on a case-by-case basis after public comment.  (See our earlier posting here for further details about the Commission's October decision.)  Since that decision, over 150 new waiver requests have been filed with the FCC, with most of them coming in the past month or so.  The vast majority of these waiver requests have been filed by very small program producers who assert that requiring closed captions for the television program they produce would be economically burdensome.  These waiver requests often involve religious programs, local real estate shows, and local sports or entertainment programs. Consistent with FCC's October clarification, the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau is releasing Public Notices soliciting comment and input on each waiver request.  So far, the Commission has issued 14 such public notices in the past few days.  An example of one such notice is available here.  Once the particular request is put out for public notice, interested parties will have 30 days to file comments or oppositions with the FCC.  The recent public notices are careful to instruct parties to file comments or oppositions with the Commission in paper.  Any comments or oppositions sent via email will not be considered part of the official record. 

The Commission's October decision clarified the proper standard to be applied when considering a request for waiver of the television closed captioning rules on the basis that compliance would be economically burdensome.  Although that decision confirmed that the bar for obtaining a captioning waiver is rather high and requires a thorough and well-supported showing, most of the recent waiver requests that have been filed in the past month or two are very short and lack supporting documentation. Given the large number of such small television program producers, it is likely that many similar waiver requests will continue to be filed in coming weeks.  But as many of the recent waiver requests appear to lack the proper supporting documentation and detailed showing that the Commission expects, it seems that many of these requests for waiver of the captioning rules are destined to fail.  In fact, many of the requests appear to consist of little more than a letter to the FCC stating that compliance would be impossible and asking that the Commission waive the captioning requirement.  As the Commission is just starting to solicit comments on these waivers and to consider the requests, decisions are at least a month or two away.  If small program producers do not have the ability to caption their shows on their own and cannot obtain a waiver of the Commission's rules, then they will either need to find additional sponsorship to defray the costs, convince a television station or cable operator to assist with the costs, or else cease producing the program.  We will continue to track the FCC's consideration of these waiver requests and will provide future updates. 

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

As we reported last week, the FCC has adopted a Report and Order establishing rules for the closed captioning of video programming delivered via Internet protocol (i.e., IP video), as required by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA). DWT has now released an advisory with further details about the new rules, which is available here. The new rules govern TV stations, cable systems, broadcast and cable networks and virtually every other professional video program producer who is now, or will be in the future, making programming available online. The rules also impose new requirements on hardware (such as set-top boxes, PCs, smartphones DVD players, Blu-ray and tablets) designed to receive or play back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound and integrated software.

With rules that are so wide-reaching, everyone involved in these businesses needs to understand what the new rules entail.  A summary of the Commission's Order follows below, and please see our advisory for complete details about the new rules. Consistent with CVAA's mandate, the FCC has adopted rules that:

• Extend to all full-length video programming previously distributed on television with captions to require that captioning appears when such programming is displayed online via IP;
• Establish a two-year transition for uncaptioned, archival IP-delivered content that is shown on TV with captions after the new rules’ effective date;
• Require video programming owners to send caption files for covered IP video to video programming distributors and video programming providers along with the program files, or alternatively, inform the distributors–using a mechanism agreed to by the parties–that captions are not required for a particular program;
• Require video programming distributors and video programming providers to enable the rendering or pass-through of all required captions to the end user;
• Require captioning of covered IP video to be of at least the same quality as the captioning that the programming had when it appeared on TV;
• Establish deadlines by which categories of covered IP video must be captioned, as follows:
  • Programming that is prerecorded and unedited for online distribution, when subject to the new requirements, must be captioned within 6 months of the rules’ effective date;
  • Programming that is aired live or “near-live” on TV, when subject to the new requirements, must be captioned within 12 months of the rules’ effective date;
  • Programming that is prerecorded and edited for online distribution, when subject to the new requirements, must be captioned within 18 months of the rules’ effective date;
• Adopt the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) Timed Text format (SMPTE ST 2052-1:2010: “Time Text Format (SMPTE-TT)” 2010 as a safe-harbor interchange and delivery format, but stop short of requiring all covered entities to use this standard;
• Decline to adopt categorical exemptions other than that mandated by the CVAA (i.e., consumer generated programming. which is statutorily exempt);
• Establish procedures by which video programming providers and video programming owners may petition for exemptions from the new requirements based on economic burden;
• Accommodate de minimis failures to comply with the new captioning obligations;
• Adopt procedures for complaints alleging violations of the new rules;
• Decline to adopt specific forfeiture amounts, opting instead to penalize violations based upon the facts and circumstances of each case;
• Permit entities to comply with the new requirements by alternate means; and
• Impose requirements for devices subject to the closed captioning requirements.

Given the scope of the new rules, there will undoubtedly be questions and requests for clarification that arise along the way.  We wll continue to track these new rules and provide further updates on this important issue. 

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

This afternoon, the FCC released its long-anticipated Report and Order (R&O) setting forth the Commission’s new closed captioning rules for IP-delivered video programming, pursuant to the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA). 

As we explained when the rules were first proposed in September, the CVAA directed the FCC to establish how and when certain IP-delivered video programming must be captioned, as well as the closed captioning capabilities for devices used to view video programming. The R&O adopts closed captioning requirements for owners, providers, and distributors of IP-delivered video programming; a safe harbor technical standard and delivery format for IP video captions; a staggered compliance schedule; complaint rules; and requirements for manufacturers of devices used to view the video programming at issue.

We are currently reviewing this comprehensive rulemaking, and will post our in-depth review next week, both here and on our DWT Advisories page.

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

The FCC has extended the comment deadline in two proceedings looking at imposing new public interest obligations on TV broadcasters (and potentially, at some point in the future, on radio stations as well).  Both proceedings are an outgrowth of the FCC's Future of Media Report, that suggested that broadcasters be made to be more responsive to their communities through better documentation of how they are meeting their public interest obligations.  We mentioned in our post on January FCC deadlines last week, that the reply comment deadline on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the online public inspection file, which was originally scheduled for last week, has been extended until January 17.  In addition, the initial comments on the Notice of Inquiry on the development of a form on which broadcasters would report on their public interest programming (to replace the Form 355 that was adopted but never implemented) were due on January 17, but the due date for those comment has been extended until January 27, with replies now due on February 9.  We summarized the issues raised by the online public file notice of proposed rulemaking here, and those set out in the Notice of Inquiry on the new form to document the public interest service of TV broadcasters here.  File comments as to how these proposals would affect your operations, and watch to see what action the FCC takes later this year in these very important proceedings. 

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

In addition to the normal FCC deadlines for routine filings, January brings the deadline for comments in a number of FCC proceedings, and a filing window for new FM applications.  For TV stations, the Commission recently extended to January 17 the Reply Comment deadline on its proposals (summarized here) for an online public inspection file.  Many public interest groups have supported the FCC's proposals to put the public file online, including the political file and new information concerning sponsorship identification information, while broadcasters have expressed concerns about the burden and practicality of an online file with all the information that the FCC is considering.  Comments are also due on January 17 on the related Notice of Inquiry looking into the adoption of a new form to document the public interest programming of TV broadcasters to replace the never-effective Form 355.  Comments deadlines on Petitions for Reconsideration of two other rulemaking decisions - on the adoption of rules allowing AM stations to use FM translators, and the Rural Radio proceeding - are due on January 4 with replies on January 17.  That the FCC only now sought comments on the 3 year old Reconsideration petitions in the AM translator proceeding is unusual, as the issue raised by the reconsideration petitions has also been incorporated in the recent FCC proceeding looking at the relationship between FM translators and LPFM opportunities.

We just reminded broadcasters of the new FM window, where applications for 119 new FM channels can now be filed between now and the January 12 deadline.  Broadcasters also need to remember to complete their Quarterly Issues Programs lists, and place them in their public file, by January 10.  As we've written, there are big fines for stations who forget to complete these reports and have to report their absence at license renewal time.  See our advisory on the Quarterly Issues Programs Lists, here, and also our advisory on Children's Television obligations, including Form 398, that needs to be filed at the FCC by January 10, along with a public file report documenting compliance with the limitations on commercial advertising in children's programming . 

For more information on many of the routine regulatory deadlines for broadcasters, see our Broadcasters Calendar for 2012 here.

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

The FCC this week adopted its rules implementing the CALM Act to address the public perception that commercials are too loud – louder than the programming which they accompany. Congress passed a law last year requiring that the FCC address the issue, and this week’s order adopts these implementing rules which will go into effect on December 13, 2012 (see our articles on the passage of the Act here, and on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding here). The rules adopted by the FCC allow television stations and MVPDs (multichannel video programming distributors – cable and satellite TV companies) to meet the requirements of the Act by relying on the A/85 Recommended Practice, a standard adopted by the ATSC (the Advanced Television Standards Committee) setting out a process by which these TV providers can assure that commercials that they insert into program streams are not louder than the programs that they accompany. The rules also allow a safe harbor by which stations and MVPDs can comply with the Act in connection with “embedded commercials”, i.e. commercials that are sent to the station or system by a network or other program supplier.

The specific requirements for compliance with the new rules depend on whether the advertisements that are being broadcast are originated by the station or system, or whether they come embedded from some third-party program provider. For commercial insertions by the station or MVPD, compliance is assumed if they install the equipment required by A/85, use it in connection with their insertions, and maintain and repair it as necessary to keep it in good working order. For embedded commercials, stations can run all the programming through some sort of real time processing to ensure that the audio loudness is uniform. However the Commission was concerned would audio processing would degrade the audio quality of the programming provided by third parties. Thus, the Commission offered an alternative safe harbor with respect to embedded advertising. To comply with the safe harbor, stations and systems would either:

• Rely on widely available certifications from networks and other program suppliers that they have complied with the standards necessary to assure that the commercials are no louder than the programming in which they are embedded, or
• The stations and systems will need to perform “spot checks” on programming for which they have obtained no certification. Spot checks are done as follows:
  • Large stations (with over $14 million in annual 2011 revenue based on BIA Media Access Pro information) and very large MVPDs ( those with over 10 million subscribers) needs to annually spot check 100% of their non-certified programming. Large MVPDs (those with between 500,000 and 10 million subscribers) need to spot check 50% of their programming. Small stations and systems are exempt from regular spot check obligations
  • The spot check is a once-a-year obligation, requiring the station or system to do 24 hours of monitoring within a 7 day period, including at least one complete program from each non-certified program supplier, to ensure that the programs comply with the A/85 standards
  • Spot checks will phase out over 2 years as more and more programming is brought into compliance
  • If a spot check reveals an issue, the station or system needs to notify the program provider and the FCC, and do another spot check of the non-compliant programming within 30 days . If the programming continues to be noncompliant, then the programming is outside the safe harbor (meaning that, if a station or system continues to run it, they can be subject to fines)

The Order also set out additional details about what kinds of programming are subject to the rules, the complaint process for those who believe that stations or systems are not complying with their obligations, and waivers for small stations and systems.  These matters are discussed below.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC's proposal to replace the never-implemented Form 355 with a new form to document the public interest programming of television broadcasters (to eventually be expanded to include radio operators) was published in today's Federal Register - setting January 17 as the comment date for those interested in telling the FCC what they think of the proposed new form.  We summarized the FCC's proposals for the content of the new form in our article here.  This form would also replace quarterly issues programs lists as the way that broadcasters demonstrate how they serve the public interest, and would be included in the new online public inspection file if the proposal for such a file is adopted by the FCC (comments on that proposal are due next week, on December 22, see our notice here). 

The new form documenting the public interest programming of TV stations is proposed to include information on the following types of programs, based on a "composite week" of data - the dates for which may be selected after the fact, potentially requiring the taping of programs so that broadcasters can reach back to get the required data:

• Local news
• Local Civic/Government Affairs ("interviews with or statements by elected or appointed officials and relevant policy experts on issues of importance to the community, government meetings, legislative sessions, conferences featuring elected officials, and substantive discussions of civic issues of interest to local communities or groups")
• Local Electoral Affairs
• Closed Captioning and Video Description (i.e. how much video description is being done by a station, and what exceptions to closed captioning are being claimed for programming broadcast on the station)
• Emergency accessibility complaints (complaints filed against a station for not making emergency programming accessible to those with disabilities)

For more concerns about some of the proposals, review our more detailed summary of the proposal, and file comments by January 17, or replies by January 30, in this important proceeding. 

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

While the FCC is entertaining comments on its proposal to move the public inspection file for broadcast television stations online (see our article here), the existing physical public files of several New York area broadcasters came under examination by the New York Times, according to an article in Sunday’s paper. The article seemed to both make fun of the contents of the required public file, while at the same time noting that the people at several stations contacted by the reporter seemed to be unaware of the Commission’s requirements that the file be made available immediately to anyone who visits a station and asks to see it, and that requiring appointments is not an option. We've written in the past about stations that received substantial fines for requiring a visitor to make an appointment to see a station’s files (see, one case where a commercial TV station was fined $10,000, and another where a noncommercial FM was fined $8000 for a similar violation).  If the NY Times article is accurate, stations need to reexamine their policies and be sure that those dealing with the public know of the location of the file and the fact that it must be made available upon request – no questions asked. For more information about the public file requirements, see our Guide to the Basics of the Public Inspection File for Commercial Stations, here.

The second aspect of the report, poking some fun at some of the weird comments from the public found in the file, reinforces some of what I have been told by broadcasters. At a broadcaster meeting last week, I was told stories of station public files that have expanded exponentially since the FCC added a requirement that the file contain emails from the public, as well as letters. Broadcasters report that the letters from the public can now often take up several drawers of a file cabinet, while the remainder of the file fits in a single drawer. While the Commission has tentatively concluded that these letters would not be required to be included in the electronic online file, the recent rulemaking proposal did suggest that the letters be retained at the station, and that perhaps summaries of the written comments be made part of the online file. In addition, comments were requested as to whether social media posts about station operations be kept in some fashion – even though sites like Facebook and Twitter, by their very nature, keep most of what it posted on their sites for the public to view (see our summary of the proposals here). Broadcasters at my meeting last week were very concerned about the volume of paper that would generate, and the need for manpower to review Twitter feeds and Facebook posts almost around the clock to see if any needed to be placed into the file as they related to the station operations.

Continue Reading...

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

When the FCC last month started a new proceeding to mandate an online public file for television stations, the Commission promised to soon initiate another proceeding to look into the need for a new form to document the public interest programming that TV stations provide.  The FCC today fulfilled that promise, and issued a Notice of Inquiry ("NOI") to start the process of adopting a new form for TV stations to complete to report on various categories of "public interest programming," however that might be defined.  In 2007, the FCC had adopted Form 355 to accomplish that task.  But, after an outcry from stations about the paperwork burden that the form would impose, the FCC never submitted it to the Office of Management and Budget for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and thus the form never became effective.  The adoption of the Form 355 was vacated last month in the online public file proceeding.  But the Commission now proposes its return - in some fashion.  So what does the Commission now propose to require from TV stations to document their public interest programming?

First, the FCC asks a series of questions about how such a form should be structured, and how the information should be collected to be meaningful for those that want to analyze it, but not overly burdensome for the TV stations.   The Commission seems to conclude that the form is necessary - not even asking questions on that basic issue of whether to adopt a standardized form.  The NOI states:

We continue to believe that the use of a standardized disclosure form will facilitate access to information on how licensees are serving the public interest and will allow the public to play a more active role in helping a station meet its obligation to provide programming that addresses the community's needs and interests

The Commission then goes on to discuss the Quarterly Programs Issues lists  ("QPIs") that are currently required to be placed in a station's public file every three months - describing the issues that station management sees as important in the community and the programs that the station has broadcast to address those issues (see our most recent advisory on this obligation, here).  The Commission states that these quarterly reports should be replaced, as broadcasters have been uneven in their recordkeeping of such lists.  Of course, that may be because the FCC has never proscribed any specific form for these reports, nor specifically said what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in connection with such reports.  Seemingly, replacing one form with another (albeit a more complete, detailed new form) may well accomplish nothing if the new report does not have clear and unambiguous instructions - something never adopted for the Quarterly Reports.

Continue Reading...

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

The full text of the FCC's Order overturning its 2007 decision on online public inspection files for TV broadcasters and the adoption of the Form 355 "enhanced disclosure form" has now been released.  This order, adopted at the FCC's open meeting this week (held on October 27, 2011, which we wrote about here), also contains a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking again suggesting an online public file, but this time it would be one hosted by the FCC.  In reading the full text, more details of the FCC's proposal become clear.  As set forth below, the Order suggests everything from a future application of these rules to radio once the bugs have been worked out, to an examination of whether a station needs to save Facebook posts and other social media comments in the same way that it preserves letters from the public and emails about station operations, to a proposal for stations to document in their files information about all "pay for play" sponsorships.  Comments on these proposals, and the others summarized below, which include a request for detailed information about the costs of compliance with the proposals, are due 30 days from when the order is published in the Federal Register, with Reply Comments due only 15 days thereafter.  The FCC, after sitting on these obligations for almost 5 years, now seems to be ready to move quickly. 

In reaching it's decision, the order first discusses some proposals that it was rejecting - some for the time being.  For radio broadcasters, the most important of the rejected thoughts was the extension of this rule to radio.  The Commission noted that there were proposals pending and ripe for action as part of the Localism proceeding (which we summarized here), to extend the online public file obligations to radio.  In this week's order, the FCC decided that it was not yet ready to apply these rules to radio.  The Commission noted that there might need to be differences in the rules for radio (implying that, at least partially, there might be resource issues making it difficult for radio broadcasters to comply with these rules), and also finding that it would be better to see how an online file works for TV before extending the rule to radio.  But, from the statements made in the Order, there is no question but that, at some point in the future, some form of the obligations that are proposed for TV will also be proposed for radio broadcasters. 

Also, it is important to note that the FCC's Localism proceeding is not dead yet.  While this week's Order stems from the FCC's Future of Media Report (renamed the Report on the Information Needs of Communities), and that report recommended that the Localism proceeding be terminated, this Order did not do that.  The Commission notes its plans to start a new proceeding designed to force broadcasters to complete a more comprehensive report on their public interest programming.  That proceeding may be where the looming Localism proposals are finally dealt with.  Statements at the meeting and passages in the Order make clear that the examination of the public interest obligations for broadcasters will begin with a Notice of Inquiry, which is a most preliminary stage of an FCC proceeding (which would be followed by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking after the inquiry comments are reviewed) and then an Order.  So final resolution of these issues seem to be far down the road.  If that is the case, will the Localism proposals stay on the table until the Order in this new proceeding is adopted?  It is certainly unclear from the Commission's statements thus far.

Continue Reading...

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

At its meeting today, the FCC vacated its 2007 Order mandating an online public file and the filing of the Form 355 “Enhanced Disclosure” form that detailed the public interest service of television broadcasters. But these requirements are not gone, as the Commission has adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking to reinstate an obligation for an online public file, and a Notice of Inquiry is apparently circulating at the FCC that would propose a substitute for the Form 355. The proposal for the new online public file apparently also suggests including new information in the online file, including information about sponsorship identification and copies of shared service agreements. While the text of the FCC order is not yet out, from the information provided at the FCC meeting, the following matters appear to be on the table at the FCC:

• The FCC proposes that TV broadcasters will need to have an online public file, submitted to and maintained on servers at the FCC rather than on each individual station's website
  • Several Commissioners suggest that the Commission will develop a mechanism for accessible storage of online public files, which may be searchable by the public
  • The online public file form will automatically import other FCC filings that are required to be in the file
  • Until the FCC electronic database is perfected, the documents will be placed online in their current formats
• Letters from the public concerning station operations are proposed to be excluded from the online file out of privacy concerns, though broadcasters will still need to keep those letters in a public file at the station.
• The online public file is proposed to include the political file, which was exempt under the 2007 rule as it would be too burdensome to update that report rapidly during an election season
• The online file is proposed to include additional material not now required to be in the public file, including:
  • Copies of shared services agreements
  • Sponsorship identification information that is now only broadcast on air in connection with the program in which sponsored material is included
• The FCC is currently considering a Notice of Inquiry, a draft of which is apparently circulating among the Commissioners now, that proposes some form of enhanced disclosure form that will replace the Form 355 (and the current Quarterly Programs Issues list) to document the public service provided by TV broadcasters

Continue Reading...

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

Yesterday, the FCC released an Order that reversed a five-year-old decision by its Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (“CGB” or “Bureau”) that had granted certain video programmers “undue burden” exemptions from the FCC’s closed captioning rules. The reversed Bureau decision had changed the criteria for undue burden exemptions and permanently exempted two video programmers from compliance with the closed captioning rules on the basis of the new criteria. Finding that the Bureau’s new criteria deviated from both the statute and FCC precedent, the Commission overturned the decision, reversed 296 subsequent exemptions that had been granted by the Bureau in reliance thereon, and reinstated the original criteria for captioning exemptions. DWT has just released an advisory that provides more detail about the Commission’s decision, which can be found here. In addition, a copy of the Commission’s Order can be found here.

In overturning the undue burden exemptions CGB approved in 2006, the Commission found numerous faults with both the Bureau’s initial decision and its handling of hundreds of subsequent petitions seeking similar exemptions. Although undue burden exemptions were to be reviewed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis after opportunity for public comment and were to consider four factors: (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; (2) the impact on the operation of the provider or program owner; (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and (4) the type of operations of the provider or program owner, the Bureau deviated from previous Commission decisions by expanding the scope of the factors considered.  In particular, its decision relied primarily on the non-profit status of programming providers and that the programming was not produced for primarily commercial purposes.  Further, the Bureau found captioning programs would constitute a “significant hardship” and that there was a significant risk that mandating captioning would cause the video programming provider to cancel the programming.
 

Continue Reading...

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

Online public files, detailed reports about virtually every program aired on a television station as to its source and whether it addressed various types of perceived community interests, and other paperwork requirements that would have required most television stations to hire a new employee just to deal with the burden, were all part of mandatory television public interest reporting requirements adopted by the FCC back in 2007 (see our articles here and here on these reports on FCC Form 355).  Similar obligations were also proposed for radio but never adopted.  The TV "enhanced disclosure" rules have never been implemented, however, and were apparently never even submitted to the Office of Management and Budget  for approval of their compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.  The numerous petitions for reconsideration filed against these rules are on the tentative agenda for the next FCC meeting, to be held on October 27.  Not only is the disposition of these petitions on the agenda, but a proposal for a further proceeding to look at new requirements for an online public file, to be hosted by the FCC, is to be considered at the same time.  What can broadcasters expect to happen?

In the Future of Media Report issued by the Commission earlier this year (actually renamed the Report on the Information Needs of Communities), the FCC study group recommended abolishing these 2007 rules, and terminating the proceeding looking at imposing them on radio (see our summary here).  The Report seemed to recognize that the reports were far too burdensome on licensees, and were not reasonably related to the current FCC rules on programming.  In essence, the reports required the collection of lots of information, without any regulatory purpose for the information collected.  In light of these findings, and the 4 year delay in implementing the rules already adopted, it seems safe to conclude that the 2007 rules are probably on their way out.  But the accompanying notice suggesting that the FCC will begin a new rulemaking to look at the online public inspection files, to be hosted by the FCC, raises questions about what will replace the 2007 rules.

Continue Reading...

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

The end of September marks the close of the Third Quarter of 2011, which brings two quarterly filing obligations for broadcast stations.  The first obligation is that by October 10 all radio and television stations, both commercial and noncommercial, must prepare and place in their public inspection file Quarterly Issues Programs Lists reporting on the important issues facing the stations' communities, and the programs aired in the months of July, August, and September that dealt with those issues. The failure to have a complete set of Quarterly Issues Programs lists, which were timely prepared and placed in a station’s public file, can lead to significant fines at license renewal time so all stations are urged to prepare their Quarterly Issues Programs lists in a timely fashion. See our full advisory for further details.  With the renewal cycle now in full-swing for radio stations and looming on the horizon for television stations, licensees are reminded to make sure their stations are meeting this obligation on a quarterly basis. 

Secondly, full power and Class A low power television stations are reminded that Children's Television Programming Reports on FCC Form 398 must be prepared and filed electronically with the FCC by October 10, 2011.  While technically, the deadline for filing the Form 398 with the FCC will roll to Tuesday, October 11th (because Monday is a Federal holiday, Columbus Day), given that the Reports must also be placed in the station's public inspection file within ten days after the end of the quarter, it would be best for stations to simply prepare and file their programming reports by October 10th to ensure they are timely. Our recent advisory is available here with all the details on the Children's Television Programming Reports.  By Oct. 10th, commercial stations should also prepare and place in their public inspection file the necessary quarterly certifications regarding compliance with the commercial limitations in Children's Programming. 

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

The FCC just issued a Report to Congress concerning the access of television viewers to in-state television stations.  This report was requested by Congress as part of STELA (the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act), which extended the compulsory license for direct to home satellite television operators (DISH and DirecTV) - a license which gives them copyright clearances to retransmit all the programming transmitted by the broadcast television stations that they make available as part of their service packages.  Congress also requested a Report from the Copyright Office on the need for the compulsory license - a report also issued this week, which we will write about in another article.  The issue of access to in-state television stations has been a controversial issue, as several Congressmen have sought (and in a few cases actually received) legislative authority for cable providers to carry out-of-market television stations on cable systems serving areas in one state that are part of television markets where the television stations come from a different state.  The report refers to these areas as "orphan counties."  Once legislative authority was granted in one state, many other bills popped up in Congress trying for the same relief in their state - causing concern that the existing television markets (or Designated Market Areas or "DMAs", designated by the Nielsen Company) might be undermined.  To see what impact such changes would have, Congress requested this report from the FCC.

The report for the most part does not make recommendations, but instead simply provides information about the service provided to US television viewers, the potential options for bringing an in-state service to all viewers, and the issues that such proposals would raise. Perhaps the most interesting fact revealed by the report is that 99.98% of all US television households already have access to an in-state television station, either over-the-air or through a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (e.g. cable or satellite TV system), so this is a very isolated issue.  However,when the FCC sought comments on the issues discussed in the report, a number of individuals in particular DMAs responded about situations where they could not get access to in-state television stations and asked that something be done.  The report assesses the implications of any action that could be taken.

Continue Reading...

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

Yesterday, FCC Chairman Genachowski issued a press release stating that the FCC was abolishing the Fairness Doctrine as part of its clearing of its book of 83 obsolete media rules.  What should the reaction of broadcasters be now that the Fairness Doctrine has been officially abolished?  Probably, a collective yawn.  In 1987 - almost 25 years ago - the FCC felt that it could not enforce the doctrine as it was an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech of broadcasters.  Since then, we have had no instances where the FCC has tried to revive the doctrine.  While, as we have written before, the revival of the doctrine is a political issue that is from time to time bandied about as something horrible one political party or another plans to impose on America, there really has been no serious attempt to bring the doctrine back in this decade.  So the repeal of the actual FCC rule that sets out the doctrine is really inconsequential, as it practically changes nothing.

What remains unknown about yesterday's announcement from the Chairman is just how far this repeal goes.  While certain corollaries of the Doctrine - including the political editorializing and personal attack rules - have been specifically mentioned in press reports as being repealed, the one vestige of the doctrine that potentially has some vitality - the Zapple Doctrine compelling a station to provide time to the supporters of one candidate if the station provides time to the supporters of another candidate in a political race, has never specifically been abolished, and is not mentioned in the Chairman's statement.  Zapple, also known as "quasi-equal opportunities", has been argued in in various recent controversies, including in connection with the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry, when Kerry supporters claimed that they should get equal time to respond should certain television stations air the anti-Kerry Swift Boat "documentary."  We have written about Zapple many times (see, for instance, here, in connection with the Citizens United decision).  What would be beneficial to broadcasters would be a determination as to whether Zapple has any remaining vitality, as some have felt that this doctrine is justified independent of the Fairness Doctrine.  Perhaps that clarification will come when the full text of the FCC action is released.

Continue Reading...

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

US broadcasters often complain about FCC regulations on programming, but they don't realize how easy they have it compared to much of the rest of the world.  I recently spent several days in one of the former Soviet Republics discussing broadcast regulation with broadcaster representatives, employees of the country's regulatory agency, and members of citizen advocacy groups.  What seemed most surprising to those in this developing capitalist country was the fact that, in the US, broadcasters can change formats at will to react to marketplace conditions.  This is not a freedom enjoyed in much of the rest of the world - even in Western Europe or in Canada.  We've written many times (see, for instance our article here) that the FCC does not consider format issues - even where there are citizens complaints about a proposed change in format or a sale of a station that will probably lead to such a change.  In fact, just last Friday, the FCC again reached that same conclusion, finding that it will not prevent a sale because the sale will result in a format change.  The FCC has determined that format choices are a business decision protected by the First Amendment, so broadcasters are free to change at will, without the government interfering in these programming decisions.

In the country that I visited, their regulatory agency issues station licenses with strict format restrictions.  The agency even regulates networks (both broadcast and cable) to make sure that their programming meets the needs of the communities that they are intended to serve and that the programmers comply with various regulatory and structural requirements.  Unlike in the US, where there may be penalties when a company violates the limited program restrictions that are in place (e.g. political broadcasting, children's television obligations, indecency rules), in many countries, even the decision as to what kind of entertainment programming to offer is subject to government review.  This country is certainly not unique in regulating broadcasting in that way.  In looking at the website of Ofcom, the regulatory authority for the United Kingdom, you can see how closely formats are regulated.  One recent request for public comment (which could not be approved on an expedited pro forma basis as it was deemed to raise significant questions requiring public input before a decision could be made), proposed the following change in the format of a radio station:

Current Character of Service

A RHYTHMIC-BASED MUSIC AND INFORMATION STATION PRIMARILY FOR LISTENERS OF AFRICAN OR AFRO-CARIBBEAN ORIGIN, BUT WITH CROSS-OVER APPEAL TO YOUNG WHITE FANS OF URBAN CONTEMPORARY BLACK MUSIC AND AT LEAST 26 HOURS A WEEK OF IDENTIFIABLE SPECIALIST MUSIC PROGRAMMES (TO INCLUDE REGGAE, RnB AND HIP HOP RHYTHMIC-BASED (e.g. DANCE, CLUB etc).

Proposed Character of Service

A RHYTHMIC-BASED MUSIC-LED SERVICE FOR 15-29 YEAR-OLDS SUPPLEMENTED WITH NEWS, INFORMATION AND ENTERTAINMENT. THE SERVICE SHOULD HAVE PARTICULAR APPEAL FOR LISTENERS IN THEIR 20s AND AT LEAST 12 HOURS A WEEK OF IDENTIFIABLE SPECIALIST MUSIC PROGRAMMES.

Can you imagine a requirement that the FCC look at each proposal of a radio station to make programming changes along the lines set out above?  Some US stations make these kind of changes routinely, trying to fine tune their programming to provide the best service that they can to the public.  Stations in the US do the research to determine what programming they will broadcast, and how to insure that programming will reach the biggest and best audience - and the station's decisions are not subject to second guessing by the government.  In some of these other countries, the government does the research to determine what format it thinks is best for the public.  While we had more regulation in the past - these systems are obviously far different from what we do in regulating formats today.

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC today heard from its Future of Media task force, when its head, Steven Waldman presented a summary of its contents at its monthly meeting.  At the same time, the task force issued its 475 page report - which spends most of its time talking about the history of media and the current media landscape, and only a handful of pages presenting specific recommendations for FCC action.  The task force initially had a very broad mandate, to examine the media and how it was serving local informational needs of citizens, and to recommend actions not only for the FCC, but also for other agencies who might have jurisdiction over various media entities that the FCC does not regulate.  Those suggestions, too, were few in the report as finally issued.  What were the big headlines for broadcasters?  The report suggests that the last remnants of the Fairness Doctrine be repealed, and that the FCC's localism proceeding be terminated - though some form of enhanced disclosure form be adopted for broadcasters to report about their treatment of local issues of public importance, and that this information, and the rest of a broadcaster's public file, be kept online so that it would be more easily accessible to the public and to researchers.  Online disclosures were also suggested for sponsorship information, particularly with respect to paid content included in news and informational programming.  And proposals for expansion of LPFMs and for allowing noncommercial stations to raise funds for other nonprofit entities were also included in the report. 

While we have not yet closely read the entire 475 page report, which was tiled The Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age, we can provide some information about some of the FCC's recommendations, and some observations about the recommendations, the process, and the reactions that it received.  One of the most important things to remember is that this was simply a study.   As Commissioner McDowell observed at the FCC meeting, it is not an FCC action, and it is not even a formal proposal for FCC action.  Instead, the report is simply a set of recommendations that this particular group of FCC employees and consultants came up with.  Before any real regulatory requirements can come out of this, in most cases, the FCC must first adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or a series of such notices, and ask for public comment on these proposals.  That may take some time, if there is action on these suggestions at all.   There are some proposals, however, such as the suggestion that certain LPFM rules be adopted in the FCC's review of the Local Community Radio Act so as to find availability for LPFM stations in urban areas, that could be handled as part of some proceedings that are already underway.

Continue Reading...

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

The sale of a noncommercial radio station is often controversial, especially when it's clear that the format of the station will change after the transfer.  In a decision released last week denying a Petition to Deny challenging the application for the sale of KTRU, the noncommercial radio station owned by Rice University, the FCC again made clear that they are not in the business of regulating the formats of broadcast stations.  For 30 years, the FCC has held firm to its position that the marketplace is best for deciding on what format a station should broadcast.  Thus, when Rice University students argued that the sale of their station and the loss of the diverse format that the station had programmed would harm localism and diversity, the FCC rejected the argument.  Seemingly, that decision makes sense, as we don't want a government agency becoming a czar of the programming offered by broadcast stations.  When we see decisions from the regulatory bodies in the United Kingdom or Canada sanctioning stations that don't stick to their legally proscribed formats, we wonder how such a system could possibly function in the US.  Can you imagine the FCC fining a station because it played too many hits on an alternative station?  Of too much rock on an Adult Contemporary station?  Once the FCC or any government agency gets into regulating formats, these sorts of decisions will follow.  Luckily, based on this decision and the prior 30 years of precedent, we won't have to worry about such an eventuality.

The Commission also rejected other objections to the sale of KTRU. The Petitioners had challenged the noncommercial purpose and educational plan of the buyer - an argument summarily rejected as the buyer was already the licensee of another noncommercial station in the market.  The ownership of that station led to another argument - that the sale would violate ownership limits by concentrating too many noncommercial stations in the hands of one operator.  But the FCC made clear that there are no ownership limitations on how many noncommercial stations one company can own. 

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC has granted an extension of time to submit comments in its proceeding to re-institute video description rules for television programming.  Comments are now due April 28th, and Reply Comments are due by May 27th.  A copy of the FCC's recent Order extending the deadline is available here.  As we wrote about earlier (here), this rule making proceeding seeks to reinstate the Commission's prior video description rules with certain modifications, as required by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (the CVAA). The proposed rules would require large market broadcast affiliates of the top four national networks and most cable operators and DBS providers to provide programming with audio narrated descriptions of a television program’s key visual elements beginning as soon as first quarter 2012.  Davis Wright Tremaine previously summarized the Act in our earlier advisory available here.

In addition, the FCC also just granted an extension of time to file comments in a related proceeding that seeks to implement other aspects of the CVAA.  That proceeding, addressing accessibility of equipment and Advanced Communications Services, was also initiated in early March and shares a similar timetable for promulgating rules as the video description proceeding.  Accordingly, the FCC did not grant the full 30-day extension sought by the parties, but rather has granted a two week extension of time for comments.  Comments are now due on April 25, and replies on May 23 in that proceeding.  Groups including the National Federation for the Blind and the Consumer Electronic Association requested a month-long extension in the comment date but, as Congress has required that these rules go into effect at the beginning of 2012, the Commission felt that it could only justify a two week extension and still be able to meet the statutory deadline.  So have those comments ready by April 25. 

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

With April Fool's Day only a few short days away, and with many articles running in the trade press about what stations should and shouldn't do on that day, we thought that we would weigh in with our own legal reminder - no matter what you do, be careful not to violate the FCC's rule against broadcast hoaxes.  That rule, Section 73.1217 of the Commission's Rules, prevents stations from running any information about a "crime or catastrophe" on the air, if the broadcaster (1) knows the information to be false, (2) it is reasonably foreseeable that the broadcast of the material will cause substantial public harm and (3) public harm is in fact caused.  Public harm is defined as "direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties."  Air a program deemed a hoax, and expect to be fined by the FCC.

This rule was adopted in the early 1990s after several incidents that were well-publicized in the broadcast industry, including one case where the on-air personalities at a station claimed that there was someone at the station who had taken them hostage, and another case where a station broadcast bulletins that announced that a local trash dump had exploded like a volcano, and was spewing burning trash around the local neighborhood.  In both cases, first responders were notified about the non-existent emergencies, actually responded to the notices that listeners called in, and were prevented from doing their duties responding to real emergencies.  In light of these sorts of incidents, the FCC adopted its prohibition against broadcast hoaxes.  But the FCC rule is not the only reason to be wary on April 1. 

Continue Reading...

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

UPDATE:  On March 23rd, the FCC granted a ten-day extension of the filing deadline.  Comments are now due April 28th, and Reply Comments are due by May 27th.

The FCC's recent item proposing the adoption of video description rules was published in the Federal Register today setting the deadline for Comments in the proceeding. The FCC subsequently extended the deadline, and Comments are now due by April 28th, with Reply Comments due by May 27th.  As we wrote about recently (here), the FCC has initiated a rule making proceeding to reinstate its prior video description rules with certain modifications, as required by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (Act). The proposed rules would require large market broadcast affiliates of the top four national networks and most cable operators and DBS providers to provide programming with audio narrated descriptions of a television program’s key visual elements beginning as soon as first quarter 2012.  Davis Wright Tremaine previously summarized the Act in our earlier advisory available here.

Now, with today's publication of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal Register, the date for comments has been set, and the FCC is moving quickly to implement the rules.  In addition to proposing to reinstate the rules previously adopted by the FCC, the item asks many practical implementation questions about refreshing market rankings, applicability of the rules to low power television, and what constitutes the “technical capability” to pass through video descriptions. In particular, the FCC seeks to refresh the list of the top 25 DMAs, as well as update the top five national nonbroadcast networks subject to the rule.  Interested parties may file comments with the FCC either in paper or electronically through the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System on or before April 28, 2011.  

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

Yesterday, the FCC initiated a rule making proceeding to reinstate its prior video description rules with certain modifications, as required by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (Act). The proposed rules would require large market broadcast affiliates of the top four national networks and most cable operators and DBS providers to provide programming with audio narrated descriptions of a television program’s key visual elements beginning as soon as first quarter 2012.  Davis Wright Tremaine previously summarized the Act in our earlier advisory available here.

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) takes the first step toward restoring the video description regulations that the FCC previously adopted in 2000, but which were subsequently vacated by the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Now with explicit Congressional authorization, the FCC seeks to restore the video description rules by Oct. 8, 2011, as required by the Act. The FCC proposes a quick implementation, with the video description and pass-through rules beginning Jan. 1, 2012. The most significant elements of the reinstated video description rules are: 

• Broadcast affiliates of the top four national networks—ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC—located in the top 25 television markets must provide 50 hours per calendar quarter of prime time and/or children’s programming with video descriptions.
• The top five national nonbroadcast networks must provide 50 hours per calendar quarter of prime time and/or children’s programming with video descriptions. The proposed rule would be applied to multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), including cable operators and DBS providers with 50,000 or more subscribers, and presumably then be applied to the top five networks through affiliation agreements.
• “Live” and “near live” programming is exempt from the rules.
• In order to count toward the requirement, the programming must not have been aired previously with video descriptions, on that particular broadcast station or MVPD channel, more than once.
• All broadcast stations, regardless of market size or affiliation, and all MVPDs, regardless of the number of subscribers they serve, must “pass through” video description when such descriptions are provided and when the station or program distributor has the technical capability to do so.

In addition to proposing to reinstate the rules previously adopted by the FCC, the item asks many practical implementation questions about refreshing market rankings, applicability of the rules to low power television, and what constitutes the “technical capability” to pass through video descriptions. In particular, the FCC seeks to refresh the list of the top 25 DMAs, as well as update the top five national nonbroadcast networks subject to the rule. In determining the top five nonbroadcast networks, the FCC proposes to exclude from the top five any nonbroadcast network that does not provide, on average, at least 50 hours per quarter of prime time non-exempt programming, i.e., programming that is not live or near-live. The NPRM specifically seeks comment from any network that believes it should be excluded from the top five covered networks because it does not offer enough pre-recorded prime time or children’s programming.

Continue Reading...

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

In a speech given last week, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps called for a new regime to review the public interest performance of broadcasters - suggesting that license renewal become a more rigorous exercise for radio and television operators.  In his address called "Getting Media Right, A Call to Action", given to the Columbia University School of Journalism, Copps specifically suggested a "Public Value Test" for broadcasters when they file their license renewals.  If the broadcaster passes the test, the broadcaster would get a renewal.  If the broadcaster did not pass - if it does not show that it has "earned" the right to "use the people's airways" - then the licensee would get a one year probation period to prove that it should keep its license.  If it does not improve, then the license would be taken and given to "someone who will use it to serve the public interest."

So what would this Public Value Test look like?  The Commissioner suggested that the following factors would be reviewed: 

1. A Meaningful Commitment to News and Public Affairs Programming - an increased commitment to news, local public affairs, election debates and issues oriented programming would be reviewed according to some quantitative benchmarks.
2. Enhanced Disclosure - requiring broadcasters to provide more information about their programming performance, on the Internet, as the Commissioner believes that information in the public file is "laughable", and also requiring that the FCC review that information at renewal time
3. Political Advertising Disclosure - requiring more information about the sponsors of political ads
4. Reflecting Diversity - looking to increase the gender, ethnic and racial ownership of broadcast stations
5. Community Discovery - requiring that broadcasters be required to, in some formal way, communicate with their communities to determine local programming needs and the interests of various groups within a station's community
6. Local and independent programming - requiring that broadcasters provide more local and independent programming instead of "homogenized music and entertainment from huge conglomerates - the Commissioner suggesting 25% of local programming being dedicated to local and independent programs.  More local PSAs too.
7. Public Safety - requiring that all broadcasters have a plan to address emergencies and be either staffed during all hours of operation or be otherwise able to respond immediately to any local emergency.

 What's likely to happen to these proposals?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (11)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As summarized by Brian Hurh on our sister site broadbandlawadvisor.com, yesterday the FCC's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau released a Public Notice seeking comments to refresh the record on closed captioning that was last addressed in the Commission's 2005 and 2008 Closed Captioning NPRMs. As recognized by the Commission, much has happened since those proceedings, both technologically and regulatory. As directed by the recently enacted 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (which we blogged about earlier here, and discussed in DWT's Advisory here), the FCC's rules must be revised to extend closed captioning to the Internet within 6 months of the Advisory Committee's report on closed captioning, which must be released by October 2011. As we noted earlier, the Advisory Committee must be formed by December 8, and hold its first meeting by April 2011.

The revised closed captioning rules will necessarily require a new closed captioning rule making proceeding, and presumably, the Commission is gathering information now to determine what the forthcoming rule making proceeding will look like. Some of the issues that the Commission seeks to refresh include:

• Whether to establish quality standards for non-technical aspects of closed captioning, including whether different quality standards should apply to live and pre-recorded programming;
• The need for mechanisms and procedures over and above the "pass through" rule, and whether there should be a per violation forfeiture amount for non-compliance;
• Whether the FCC should revise its rules to disallow the use of electronic newsroom technique for certain DMAs;
• How the section 79.1(d)(12) exemption for channels producing revenues of less than $3 million should apply to digital mulitcast, specifically, the ramifications of treating each multicast stream as a separate channel for purposes of the exemption.

Comments are due November 24.  Reply comments are due December 9.  Comments can be submitted to the FCC in paper, or electronically via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System. 

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

Just a reminder that all Video Programming Distributors -- which includes broadcast television stations --  must identify a contact person for closed captioning issues, both immediate issues and general complaints, and file that contact information with the FCC by March 22, 2010.  As we've discussed previously, new FCC closed captioning rules recently went into effect that require video programming distributors to establish a contact for handling immediate closed captioning concerns, as well a contact for receiving written captioning complaints of a general or non-time sensitive nature.  In order to assist viewers and potentially facilitate the resolution of such captioning complaints, the rules require that video programming distributors publicize the appropriate contact information and also provide the information to the Commission, which will maintain a database open to consumers.  

Accordingly, by March 22, 2010, television stations must designate a contact person, post the necessary contact information on their web site (and in any phone directories the station may advertise in), and submit the information to the FCC.  The best way for stations to file this information with the FCC is to visit the FCC's Web site and submit the information online. The Commission’s Web site contains a detailed form with step-by-step instructions that will walk applicants through the process.  Alternatively, the contact information can be e-mailed directly to the FCC’s Disability Rights Office at: CLOSEDCAPTIONING_POC@fcc.gov.

Video programming distributors must keep their contact information current and update both their Web sites and the Commission’s database within 10 business days of any changes to the information.  Further details about the contact information requirement and the revised FCC closed captioning complaint rules can be found in our earlier posting here. 

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

On Friday, Feb. 19, 2010, two important new closed captioning rules were published in the Federal Register and went into effect. The new rules require immediate attention by video programming distributors -- including broadcast television stations -- to ensure that they respond promptly to viewer complaints regarding closed captioning issues, and to ensure that they timely file contact information with the FCC by March 22, 2010. 

As detailed in Davis Wright Tremaine’s November 2008 advisory and subsequent January 2009 advisory update, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Order in late 2008 that, among other things, imposed new requirements on video programming distributors with respect to fielding inquiries and complaints about closed captioning.  While the implementation of some aspects of those rules was delayed initially, with Friday's publication in the Federal Register, two of those are now in effect.  The new rules, and the obligations they impose on video programming distributors, are discussed below. 

Continue Reading...

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

Reading the trade press and the blogs, one would think that the Tim Tebow ad that will reportedly air during the Super Bowl presented novel, controversial legal issues.  In fact, while we haven't seen the ad, from what we've read, there do not seem to be significant legal issues - most particularly ones that arise from an FCC perspective.  The word is that this ad is pro-life, telling his mother's story of why she decided to have her child after a medical recommendation that she not, and how that child grew up to be a famous quarterback.  Where are the FCC legal issues?  Even were this ad to explicitly address a "controversial issue of public importance", like the abortion debate, and even were stations running the ad not willing to take ads from pro-choice groups (and there is no indication that this sort of rejection of opposing viewpoints has occurred), as the debates earlier this year on the airwaves and over cable channels made clear, there is no longer any Fairness Doctrine enforced by the FCC.  Thus, there is no FCC requirement for stations having to give equal time to competing sides of any particular issue (even when the Fairness Doctrine existed, there was never an obligation for strict equal time - a broadcast station just needed to, in some manner, present both sides of an  issue).

At most, were the ad to advocate some specific Federal action, there might trigger an FCC obligation for stations that carry the ad to place a note in their public file about the ad and the amount paid to run it (see our post here), but otherwise the issue seems to be a tempest in a teapot.  Since the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters have been assumed to be able to exercise their own editorial discretion to decide what serves their audience and what doesn't.  In the vast majority of cases, no one bats an eye.  But combine celebrity, the Super Bowl and a reference to a political hot-button issue, and you have a media controversy - even though there is no legal one.  So, unless the ad has some content that no one seems to be contemplating, the folks at the FCC should be able to relax and simply watch the game (assuming no clothing malfunctions or similar unexpected events - which we will leave to another post on another day...)

• 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

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

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

Continue Reading...

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

The FCC today asked for public comments on the petition of the MusicFirst Coalition asking the Commission to take action against broadcast stations who did not fairly address on air the proposed sound recording public performance royalty for terrestrial radio.  The Petition, about which we wrote here, alleges, with very few specifics, that some radio stations have taken adverse actions against musical artists who have spoken out in support of the royalty, and also that stations have refused to run ads supporting the performance royalty while running their own ads opposing the royalty (opposing ads which MusicFirst claims contain false statements).  MusicFirst submits that these actions are contrary to the public interest.  The FCC has asked for comment on specific issues raised in the Petition.  Comments are to be filed by September 8, and Replies on September 23.  

The specific questions on which the FCC seeks comment are as follows:

(i)      whether and to what extent certain broadcasters are “targeting and threatening artists who have spoken out in favor of the PRA, including a refusal to air the music of such artists";

(ii)    the effects of radio broadcasters’ alleged refusal to air advertisements from MusicFIRST in support of the PRA;

(iii)   whether and to what extent broadcasters are engaging in a media campaign, coordinated by NAB, which disseminates falsities about the PRA; and

(iv) whether certain broadcasters have evaded the public file requirements by characterizing their on-air spots in opposition to the PRA as public service announcements.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An interview with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has just been released by Broadcasting and Cable magazine.  In that interview, the Chairman confirms press reports (which we cited here) that there is a planned FCC Notice of Inquiry to look into the news media in the digital world - the first public confirmation of this inquiry from on-the-record FCC sources that I've seen. The Chairman stated, however, that there was no timetable for the initiation of this proceeding.  He also confirmed that he believes that broadcast content regulation is justified given that many Americans still rely on over-the-air television as their only source of video programming.  The interview touches on the children's television rules, indecency enforcement, diversity in the media and even FCC delays in processing applications for the sale of stations against which petitions have been filed.

We suggest reading this interview, as it is the first extensive discussion we've seen by the new Chairman of his views on regulation of the broadcast media.  And, for anyone who had hopes that broadcast regulation would simply fade away, it looks like there may be some FCC proceedings to slog through before those hopes are met. 

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

With much of the media world celebrating the life of Walter Cronkite this weekend, we have to wonder what he would have thought about press reports that the FCC is considering the commencement of a proceeding to investigate the status of broadcast journalism - assessing its quality, determining whether the Internet and other new sources are making up for any quality that is lost, and potentially deciding to mandate specific amounts of news coverage by broadcast stations. That surprising story about a planned FCC Notice of Inquiry on the state of broadcast journalism was reported in an an online report picked up by the broadcast trade press last week.  And even if that story is not true, concerns about the government's intrusion into a broadcaster's coverage of controversial issues arise from the recent Congressional committee action voting down a bill that would ban the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.  In what should have been a symbolic embrace of the First Amendment (symbolic as, in the last 6 weeks, four of the FCC Commissioners or Commissioners-to-be disavowed any interest in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in their confirmation hearings ), the defeat of the bill raises questions as to whether someone has an agenda to resurrect the government's role in assessing broadcast media coverage of controversial issues.  In reading one of the many stories of the life of Cronkite (here, at page 3), we were stuck with the contrast between these actions, and the actions of Mr. Cronkite to address controversial issues - regardless of the FCC implications.  One anecdote related his questioning of John Kennedy about his religion when Kennedy thought that topic off limits, even in light of the potential president's veiled threat that, when he took office, he would be appointing the FCC who would be regulating CBS.  Do we really want the FCC to have that power to assess what journalism is good, or what opinions each station must air to ensure "fairness"?

In reviewing the many FCC Fairness Doctrine claims that CBS faced in the Cronkite era, we are struck with the amount of time and money that must have been spent in defending its coverage against critics from both the right and the left.  We also found one particularly relevant quote from Mr. Cronkite himself: 

That brings me to what I consider the greatest threat to freedom of information: the Government licensing of broadcasting. Broadcast news today is not free. Because it is operated by an industry that is beholden to the Government for its right to exist, its freedom has been curtailed by fiat, by assumption, and by intimidation and harassment. 

 

 In the last 20 years, since Mr. Cronkite's retirement as the CBS anchor, the FCC has steadily moved away from the role that he feared.  Yet with these recent actions, one wonders if there are some in government now trying to prove Mr. Cronkite's concerns correct.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC's has published in the Federal Register certain aspects of its November decision on closed captioning - most notably the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking if a broadcaster's multicast streams should each count as a separate "channel" potentially exempt from closed captioning requirements if that channel doesn't bring in more than $3 million in annual revenue.  Seemingly, each of the multicast streams are what one would conventionally think of as a channel, yet the Commission has asked for comments on this issue - comments to be filed by February 12.  If the Commission was to determine that a multicast stream was not a separate channel, the captioning obligations would apply if the station, in all of its cumulative operations, had revenues of $3 million.   This could impose significant costs on innovative programming done on these multicast streams.  The November decision also clarified certain other rules, and adopted certain processes for dealing with complaints about captioning issues (processes yet effective as they have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act).  Davis Wright Tremaine has published a memo providing more information about the effect of the Federal Register publication.  Our summary of the November decision itself is available here

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

2009 - a new year, and a whole new cycle of regulatory requirements.  We wrote last week about the potential for changes in regulations that may be forthcoming but, like death and taxes, there are certain regulatory dates each year that broadcasters need to note and certain deadlines that must be met.  Those dates are set out in our advisory - Important Dates For Broadcasters in 2009 - a calendar of the year's regulatory filings.  Dates include the deadlines for routine FCC filings - ownership reports, children's television reports, quarterly issues programs lists, EEO Public File reports, etc.  Dates for the payment of royalties for Internet radio streaming operations are also included, as well as the lowest unit rate windows for upcoming gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.  And the all-important DTV deadlines are also listed.  So, to keep track of your regulatory obligations, check out our broadcaster's calendar, here. 

• 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, President-elect Barack Obama delivered his first weekly radio address since he was elected President.  The broadcast made news, not only for its content, but also because it was streamed on the Internet, particularly on You Tube, but also retransmitted on many other websites.  The fact that the Internet makes such transmissions not only possible, but so easy and so widely available demonstrates one of many reasons why all the worry about the return of the Fairness Doctrine is unwarranted.  With access to so many diverse opinions not only on the radio but also through all of the new technologies, why should the government care that one radio station may not cover all sides of a controversial issue?  If one station does not put on a strongly held viewpoint on an important issue, you can bet that someone who holds that viewpoint will find some way to transmit it to others. 

The return of the Fairness Doctrine has been the great invisible monster in the room since the election - with many commentators, particularly conservative ones, worrying that the Democratic Congress will attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  Off-hand comments such as those made by Senator Schumer on Fox News, have fueled this speculation, even though the Obama campaign has specifically rejected such a return.  The Fairness Doctrine is one grounded in scarcity of the electronic spectrum - from the fear that if one side of an issue was allowed to dominate one of the few means of communicating with the population of a community, it would effectively be able to stifle the ability of those with contrasting viewpoints to get their message out.   But, to use a phrase that is becoming increasingly popular - that thinking is so 20th Century.

Continue Reading...

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

With Barack Obama's historic victory just sinking in, all over Washington (and no doubt elsewhere in the country), the speculation begins as to what the new administration will mean to various sectors of the economy (though, in truth, that speculation has been going on for months).  What will his administration mean for broadcasters?  Will the Obama administration mean more regulation?  Will the fairness doctrine make a return?  What other issues will highlight his agenda?  Or will the administration be a transformational one - looking at issues far beyond traditional regulatory matters to a broader communications policy that will look to make the communications sector one that will help to drive the economy?  Some guesses, and some hopes, follow.

First, it should be emphasized that, in most administrations, the President has very little to do with the shaping of FCC policy beyond his appointment of the Commissioners who run the agency.  As we have seen with the current FCC, the appointment of the FCC Chairman can be the defining moment in establishing a President's communications policy.  The appointment of Kevin Martin has certainly shaped FCC policy toward broadcasters in a way that would never have been expected in a Republican administration, with regulatory requirements and proposals that one could not have imagined 4 years ago from the Bush White House.  To see issues like localism, program content requirements and LPFM become such a large part of the FCC agenda can be directly attributed to the personality and agenda of the Chairman, rather than to the President.  But, perhaps, an Obama administration will be different.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Broadcasting and Cable magazine today reported that the FCC is looking to back off some of the requirements for the "enhanced disclosure" of television broadcaster's public interest programming (see our summary of the new requirements of FCC Form 355, here).  B&C reports that the FCC may lessen or at least better explain some of its new reporting requirements to try to avoid having these rules being struck down by the Courts as being arbitrary and capricious, or to avoid further proceedings which might be ordered by the OMB were it to determine that the rules violated the Paperwork Reduction Act.   We have speculated as to the likelihood that these rules, requiring substantial new burdens on television broadcasters, would have difficulty surviving OMB review.  How could these burdensome rules, which the FCC has effectively stated have no regulatory purpose as the Commission has no requirements for any percentages of any particular type of programming (see our post here) possibly be justified under a Paperwork Reduction Act analysis - much more paper for no specific regulatory purpose simply does not seem to provide any justification for the new rules?  A Paperwork Reduction Act analysis focuses on the burden on small entities.  The new enhanced disclosure rules do not exempt small broadcasters.  B&C suggests that an exemption for noncommercial stations may be one of the changes to be made by the FCC - certainly a welcome change but hardly enough to help small market commercial TV operators who will be hardest hit by these rules. 

We would certainly not be surprised by the FCC lessening the burden that they have imposed on television broadcasters.  We have seen Commission staffers in public forums express surprise at the descriptions of the burdens that these rules place on television broadcasters.  And we have noted the slow pace with which these rules have been rolled out - having been adopted in December, the text of the decision coming out in January, and they still are not effective.  We will all have to watch closely to see if this press report is accurate and the FCC in fact reconsiders its Enhanced Disclosure requirements.  Stay tuned. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

More than 8 years ago, a group of television station owners (the Network Affiliated Stations Alliance or "NASA") who operated stations affiliated with the major television networks filed a request with the FCC, petitioning the Commission to rule that certain provisions in network affiliation agreements that limited the ability of stations to preempt network programming should be prohibited.  While some of these issues were raised in the Commission's localism proceeding, the parties have now reached an agreement to resolve many of the issues.  The Commission last week released an order approving that agreement and clarifying some of the legal issues as to what provisions can be contained in network affiliation agreements.  These clarifications not only help to clarify the clauses that can be contained in affiliation agreements, but also give broadcasters insights as to what kinds of provisions can be included in any agreement by which one party provides programming to a broadcast station licensee, including agreements such as LMAs.

 The Commission's Order sets out standards governing the network-station relationship that insure that the licensee maintains control over programming and other basic operational decisions of their station.  From this basic principal, the following specifics were adopted:

• Station licensees have an unfettered right to reject network programming that they believe is contrary to the public interest, "unsatisfactory" or "unsuitable
• Stations can preempt network programming when the licensee thinks there is some other programming which is of greater national or local importance.
• If a preemption is done for one of these reasons, the affiliation agreement cannot impose monetary or non-monetary penalties or limit the amount of such preemptions
• Affiliation agreements cannot give networks the right to "option" time in the future unless they make a commitment to fill that time with programming.   This is important in a multichannel digital context, as it prevents networks from tying up time on a second or third channel that they might or might not use.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

We've written extensively about the FCC's proposals to turn back the hands of time, and return to the regulatory scheme that existed prior to the early 1980s by mandating that broadcasters serve their local communities - in a manner dictated by the FCC.  In the 1980s, the FCC decided that it did not need to micromanage the programming of broadcasters, as marketplace forces would ensure that stations met the public interest.  If they did not provide the services that people wanted, the FCC reasoned in the 1980s, the people would stop listening or watching - hurting the broadcaster who was not serving its community in the pocketbook.  While the FCC is now looking to retreat from this position - apparently believing that the market is no longer capable of insuring that broadcasters serve their communities, evidence that the marketplace will provide localism is now available on that most unregulated of media - the Internet.  Tomorrow, the Huffington Post, a website that had heretofore concentrated on national stories, will be launching a version of its product targeted to Chicago and, according to a story on American Public Media's Marketplace, it will be expanding by providing local service in many other markets in the next 18 months.

This is not the only evidence that the Internet is going local.  Local news sites are springing up in many communities. quite often with no ties to "established" media.  Micro-targeting of on-line ad sales shows that marketers know that, if they offer a local product, they need to reach local people to buy that product, and the Net more and more can provide that targeting.  Many websites, from registration information, IP address or other identifying information, greet users of a site with localized information - weather, TV listings or event information for the particular user's hometown.  Thus, while the FCC seems to believe that that marketplace is incapable of guaranteeing local content to serve local communities, the actions of companies on the Internet demonstrate that, if there is a need for a local service, it will be provided - more efficiently and in a way more likely to provide the public with the service that it demands - if it is left to the market to provide.  The Internet does not seem to need the government to dictate how that local service is provided - nor should the broadcaster.  Particularly now, with the broadcast industry hurting economically and facing more competition than ever before, the FCC's actions to seek mandated localism seems to be the wrong solution to a nonexistent problem - and one that will hopefully fade away in the coming months. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In several recent speeches and press releases, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein has challenged the FCC to do more in the regulation of children's programming.  In a recent Press Release, the Commissioner outlined proposals including the following:

• Improve the V-Chip and other program blocking technologies
• Improve ratings information for television programming - including potentially having third parties review programming for its suitability to children as opposed to the television programmers themselves doing the ratings
• In the context of a proceeding on Embedded Advertising that has been rumored for quite some time, look at how such advertising is used in children's programming
• Restrict interactive advertising directed at children.
• Convene a summit to explore these issues

In addition to these proposal, the Commissioner gave a recent speech to the Media Institute in which he expanded on these ideas, and also lengthened this agenda to include further Commission action to define and restrict violent programming.  He also expressed his regrets over the recent decision overturning the FCC's fines for fleeting expletives and urged that action be taken to overturn this decision (see our post here on the FCC's appeal of that decision).  And in yet another recent speech, he emphasized the proceeding on Interactive advertising in children's programming, remarking on how the Commission has a pending proceeding that has been pending and unresolved for several years.  He cited the Commission's tentative conclusion to ban such ads, as broadcasters form a "portal" for children's entrance to the Internet.  While the Commissioner expressed that the FCC had little jurisdiction to do much on the Internet itself (but see our recent post as asking whether the FCC may soon get more power over the Internet), he felt that restrictions on the links to the Internet from television programs would be useful in protecting children. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

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

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. 

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The deadline for submitting comments in the Commission's Localism rule making proceeding is fast approaching.  Comments are due by April 28th, and can be filed electronically through the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System.  This proceeding contains a number of significant proposals and could possibly re-institute regulations that were lifted from the broadcast industry decades ago.  Formal ascertainment through community advisory boards and possibly other means, requirements for manning main studios during all hours of operation of broadcast stations, imposing quantitative programming requirements, and requiring that main studios be maintained within a station's community of license are just a few of the many proposals the FCC is considering.  See our more detailed summary here.  This proceeding seeks input on these and other potentially burdensome requirements, many of which were eliminated by the Commission long ago, and some of which go beyond what the FCC has ever required before.   Given the potential impact this proceeding could have on broadcast stations, broadcasters are encouraged to file comments in this important rule making proceeding.   When submitting comments, commenters should be sure to reference the docket number for this rule making, MB Docket No. 04-233.

Some members of Congress have already chimed in in this proceeding and submitted comments opposing the Commission's localism proposals.  Over 120 members of Congress signed on to a letter addressed to Chairman Martin urging the Commission to avoid imposing additional regulations on broadcasters and to carefully consider the cost and effect that such regulation would have on the industry.  A copy of the letter is available here.  A summary of the letter posted on Rep. Marsha Blackburn's web site characterizes the localism proceeding as an attempt to "restore a 1970s era regulatory regime for local broadcasters." 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

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

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).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 

Continue Reading...

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

On Monday, the FCC issued a $4,000 fine to a cable operator for the use of a so-called Video News Release, or VNR, in a news segment focusing on consumer issues.   The facts in this case are very similar to the facts in dozens of other inquiries involving broadcast television stations that remain pending before the Commission, and this decision could very well signal the beginning of a number of forfeitures aimed at cracking down on the (until recently) common practice of using video material provided for free by third-parties without providing attribution or a sponsorship identification.  The decision was issued by the Enforcement Bureau and not the full Commission, and goes to lengths to explain that the sponsorship rules apply to cablecasting material aired by cable operators, and that the use of even a free video (i.e. with no consideration promised or paid to the cable operator or broadcaster) can require a sponsorship ID, even if no political or controversial issue is involved. 

In this case, a cable network aired potions of video from a VNR produced on behalf of a product called "Nelson's Rescue Sleep."  No consideration was given or promised to the cable operator, but the VNR was provided to the cable operator for free.  The sponsorship ID rules typically come into play when money, services, or other valuable consideration is given in exchange for airing the particular material.  Normally, the phrase "services or other valuable consideration" does not typically include services or property furnished without charge or at a nominal fee, such as the VNR.  In this case, however, the FCC concluded that the video was furnished in consideration for the product being identified to a degree greater than what was reasonably related to the use of the product or service in the broadcast. The VNR was included in a news segment about non-prescription sleep aids, but the segment did not contain any other sleep-aid products.  And (because it was a VNR for the product itself) the segment dwelled on and discussed at length the underlying product "Nelson's Rescue Sleep." Citing to a 44-year old FCC Public Notice that provided guidance to broadcasters in the early 1960s about the sponsorship ID rules, the FCC found that the use of the VNR in this situation obviated the exception for free material and that a sponsorship identification should have been included.   A copy of the FCC's decision is available here. 

The FCC's forfeiture order was adopted exactly one year to the day that the material was aired by the cable operator, and thus, seems to have been issued now so as to avoid the possibility that the statute of limitations prevent the Commission from issuing a fine.  Although this is the first such VNR fine against either a cable operator or television broadcaster, it seems likely that more such decisions will be forthcoming.  Indeed, Commissioner Adelstein, who has championed this novel interpretation of the sponsorship identification rules, was quick to issue a statement applauding the Enforcement Bureau for its decision.  Given that the decision seems to cross into the territory of a cable operator's or broadcaster's editorial and journalistic discretion protected by the First Amendment, one can imagine that the cable operator (and any broadcasters fined in the future) will attack vigorously the FCC's interpretation of its sponsorship ID rules with respect to VNRs.

UPDATE:  On Thursday (September 27, 2007), the Commission issued a further decision involving the same cable operator, fining the operator an additional $16,000 for four more VNR incidents similar to the one discussed above.  In each instance, the cable operator included video that was received for free in a program aired on the system without attribution or a sponsorship identification.  The Commission concluded that the free video clips contained extensive images, discussion, and mention of the particular product, which triggered the sponsorship ID rules.  A copy of that decision is available here. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Late Tuesday night, in a meeting originally scheduled to start at 9:30 in the morning, the FCC adopted an order establishing the rules governing the carriage of broadcast signals by cable operators after the February 17, 2009 transition to digital television.  While the full text of the Commission’s action has not yet been released (and may not be released for quite some time), based on the FCC’s formal news release and the statements made by the commissioners at the meeting and in their accompanying press releases, we can provide the following summary of these important FCC actions.

First, for a period of at least three years after the February 17, 2009 transition from analog to digital broadcasting, cable operators will be required to make the signals of local broadcast stations available to all of their subscribers by either:  (1) carrying the television station's digital signal in an analog format, or (2) carrying the signal only in digital format, provided that all subscribers have the necessary equipment to view the broadcast content.  This rule reflects a compromise position offered by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and is regarded as less burdensome on cable systems then the FCC's original proposal of an indefinite analog carriage obligation. 

Second, the FCC reaffirmed its existing requirement that cable systems must carry High Definition (HD) broadcast signals in HD format, and further that it must carry signals with “no material degradation”, i.e., with picture quality as good as any other programming carried by the operator.  In affirming its "no material degradation" standard, the FCC rejected a proposal by the broadcast industry that would have required operators to pass-through all of the bits in digital television broadcast signal.

Continue Reading...

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

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

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

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see  The Regulation of TV Programming for Children - Embedded and Interactive Advertising, Violence, and Ratings
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see  Third Circuit Reaffirms Rejection of FCC's "Fleeting Images" Policy, Reverses Super Bowl Fine 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC, after taking two years off, is looking to finish their field hearings on Localism by scheduling a hearing in Portland, Maine on June 29.  This hearing is not one of the six hearings to discuss possible new multiple ownership rules, but instead a continuation of the hearings started by Chairman Powell after public controversy over the 2003 multiple ownership rules.  In an ironic twist of fate, this public notice was released on the Friday before the National Association of Broadcasters Educational Foundation hosts their Service to America Awards Dinner to honor broadcasters and the public service commitment that they have to their communities.  Thus, while the FCC is looking in the hinterlands for evidence of the responsiveness of the broadcast industry to the needs of their listeners, some of the best evidence of that service was on display some 12 blocks from the FCC's headquarters.

The Localism hearings were part of a larger proceeding begun in response to the controversy after the 2003 multiple ownership rules.  When the Democratic Commissioners, Congressional legislators from both parties, and a variety of citizen's groups from across the political spectrum complained about how the public's input was not sought before the rules were adopted, the FCC tried to respond to some of those complaints by putting out a Notice of Inquiry on Localism.  The proceeding was to assess how well broadcasters were serving their communities, and the Notice asked for public comment on a grab bag of issues including the following:

• whether a broadcaster's public interest obligations should be quantified (bringing back obligations abolished in the 1980s that required specific amounts of the programming of broadcast stations to be devoted to news and public affairs programming), 
• should broadcasters be required to play specific amounts of local music,
• is payola a major issue,
• whether more programming should be devoted to political campaigns, 
• whether the voices of minorities were being heard on the airwaves.
• if the FCC should authorize more LPFM stations and take other steps to make airtime available to new entrants

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

We wrote yesterday about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling throwing out two FCC indecency fines.  Further details on the legal reasoning in that decision are given in our firm's advisory published today. The decision also provoked heated reactions from two of the FCC Commissioners.  Commissioner Copps issued a statement warning broadcasters not to engage in gratuitous sex and violence on television.  Chairman Martin's statement was even more aggressive - using the "F-word" and the "S-word" freely - without resorting to the euphemisms that we employ here to avoid triggering spam blockers - for the shock value to emphasize how he believed that a liberal court overlooked the what he thought was a common-sense FCC decision with which most people would agree.

 It seems unlikely that there were many broadcasters waiting for this decision to give them the green light to run out and start gratuitously airing sex and violence.  Look at basic cable.  Years ago, court rulings held that indecency rules did not apply to cable television.  Yet, as I'm writing this, the Daily Show on Comedy Central is airing, and all the explicatives that are of such concern to the Commission are edited out of the program - and this is for a program that is not only on cable, but also is airing at 11 PM, in the safe harbor where indecent programming can air even on broadcast television.  And who has seen a rush of indecent programming on broadcast television in those safe harbor hours?  The Court decision only reached the common sense decision that the passing use of an explicative should not jeopardize an FCC license.  No matter what the Commissioners statements may say, the ruling was not one that opens the door to filth flooding the airwaves, but instead it was only one that demanded that the FCC apply logic and consistency in line with constitutional requirements when making its rulings. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Yesterday’s New York Times featured an article on its Opinion/Editorial page written by FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, suggesting that enforcement of the public interest obligations of broadcaster become more stringent. Commissioner Copps suggested that broadcasters needed to have their responsiveness to the needs of their community scrutinized more closely, and more often. Among other actions, the Commissioner suggested that license renewal period for broadcasters be shortened from the current eight year term, to once every three years – as well as a host of more stringent and specific programming obligations. Coming on the heels of the FCC’s proposal in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Digital Radio (see our summary, here) to explore the local service of broadcasters through a checklist public file report quantifying their public interest service, as well as mandating more local program origination and a greater local presence for stations, local service seems to have emerged as a major issue of concern that may be played out in FCC proceedings in this year leading up to the 2008 Presidential election.

The Copps proposal to shorten license renewal terms back to the three years, and to stiffen the renewal process, asks that the FCC return to a system that required broadcasters to spend significant sums of money on administrative matters that could have better gone to broadcast operations. And the sums that used to be spent on license renewal applications had minimal real impact on the public interest.   While from time to time, broadcasters did run into scrutiny at renewal time, the vast majority of broadcasters’ applications were reviewed in a perfunctory manner and renewed – just as they are today. And with the Commission’s depleted resources that are already stretched thin, it seems unlikely that its staff would be able to provide much greater scrutiny to renewal applications that are filed more than twice as often as they are currently – more than doubling the workload of the already overburdened Commission staff.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

It's been almost a year since President Bush signed legislation raising the fines for broadcast indecency to $325,000 per occurrence.  Even though the legislation was effective on June 15, 2006, the higher fines have not yet gone into effect as the FCC had never adopted rules to officially implement them - until today.  Today, the FCC issued an order adopting a rule to implement the statutory mandate - and the new higher fines will go into effect 30 days after this order is published in the Federal Register, which will presumably be quite soon.

There was no explanation for the Commission's delay in adopting the new rule.  As the change was mandated by statute, the adoption of the new rule did not require public notice and comment.  All the Commission needed to do was to put out the Order that was released today.  Perhaps the Commission was concerned about the pending Court cases to resolve whether their enforcement of the rules is constitutional (see our comment here).  In fact, in opposing the expedited consideration of one of the appeals of a Commission indecency fine, the Commission specifically made the point that there was no need to for prompt consideration as the chilling effect of the Commission policies was limited as the new fines had not yet gone in to effect.  But, for whatever reason, the Commission has finally decided to act, and the new fines will soon be effective.  Now we just need to watch for the Court decisions to see if the enforcement of those fines will be permitted.

• 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

We recently wrote about the FCC's proceeding to assess the status of stations that are primarily home shopping in nature - to determine if such stations are serving the public interest and are entitled to must carry status on cable systems.  The FCC has just issued an Order extending the comment deadline in that proceeding.  Comments are now due on July 18, with replies to be submitted on August 2.  With a proceeding with its roots reaching back to 1993 - a few more days to decide the issues involved probably don't make much of a difference! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In one of those "from the depths of history" moments, the FCC on Friday released a Public Notice asking that the record be refreshed as to whether television stations that program a substantial amount of home shopping programming operate in the public interest, and whether they are entitled to must-carry status on cable systems.  In 1993, the FCC found that these stations did operate in the public interest - providing shopping opportunities to the homebound and alternative programming not available on other stations.  Soon thereafter, a petition for reconsideration of that action was filed, arguing that these stations did not serve the public interest for reasons including the fact that they preempted the use of spectrum by others who could provide better service.  That petition sat at the Commission for the next 14 years.

Now, when home shopping stations have largely disappeared from the television universe, the FCC has resurrected the petition, and is asking for public comment on the issues that it raises, and is even expanding the inquiry.  The Commission asks how many television stations still program substantial amounts of shop at home programming, whether the programming is in the public interest, whether these stations preclude other more worthy uses of the television spectrum, and whether these stations meet their public interest obligations including their obligations under the FCC's Children's Television rules.

Comments are due 30 days after the Notice is published in the Federal Register, and Reply Comments are due 15 days later.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Last week, House Commerce and Energy Committee Chairman John Dingell reportedly stated that he favored the return of the Fairness Doctrine, and couldn't see why broadcasters would be opposed.  We've suggested reasons, here and here.  But the reports are that Congressman Dingell may try to move legislation to accomplish the return of the Doctrine later this year.

But, in good news for broadcasters, Congressman Dingell said that he didn't foresee any action on violence regulation this year - absent some triggering event - presumably something like the Janet Jackson incident which galvanized Congress into action to raise indecency penalties.  Perhaps one less concern for broadcasters, but the Fairness Doctrine appears to be a real concern to watch.

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

The front page of the Sunday New York Times featured a story titled "Shock Radio Shrugs at Imus's Fall And Roughs Up the Usual Victims."  The story reports on radio station talk programming and how the Times' reporters found numerous instances of what they refer to as "coarse, sexually explicit banter" and "meanness."  The Times reports that these programs could lead the announcers and the stations owners into dangerous territory - either from FCC fines or through advertiser cancellations.  The Times also correctly indicates that the FCC usually does not initiate actions against such programs based on its own monitoring, but instead based on listener complaints - almost an open invitation for such complaints to be filed based on the paper's report.  With reports such as this hitting the popular press, after being brought to the forefront of public attention by the Imus affair, and earlier this year by the Sacramento contest gone wrong for the the Wii (here), can calls for regulation be far behind?

The Times own report asks the question as to whether the FCC or Congress will step up regulation in light of the Imus affair.  Interestingly, it avoids the questions raised by its own reports as to where lines would be drawn in any regulations.  For instance, in the story, the Times identified some programming that might cause concern under FCC indecency guidelines depending on the context in which the cited material was used, the report also cites several instances which assuredly do not fit within any FCC prohibitions.  In fact, some of the samples cited by the article do not seem much more "coarse" than what you might find on some Sunday morning or cable television news-talk programming.  For instance, the Times cites, seemingly as an example of "crude remarks," statements made on the Mancow syndicated radio talk programming, where Mancow allegedly asserted that radical Muslims "would not stop until they had flattened American religion like a steamroller" and then went on to say that he didn't want his children to be killed or "brainwashed" into Islamic beliefs.  While I'm sure that the Mancow language was not the same as that which might be used on a political talk program - aren't similar expressions about the goals of radical Islam often aired on such news talk programs - often by members of the political establishment?  Would the Times want to regulate the discussion of ideas based on how or where they were expressed?  In any content regulation, lines are hard to draw.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a letter to FCC Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps and Tate, Congressman Edward Markey, head of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, has asked that the FCC take strong steps to restrict the advertising of unhealthy food in children's television programs.  While applauding voluntary efforts promised by some broadcasters to include in their children's programing more Public Service Announcements (PSAs) for healthy eating, Congressman Markey urged the FCC to do more by cutting in half to 6 minutes per hour the amount of permissible advertising in children's programming , and by finding that a station had not met its obligations to broadcast educational and informational programming directed to children if the station aired ads for unhealthy foods during a program which would otherwise qualify as a toward meeting the station's obligations.

The letter from Congressman Markey, while citing efforts in other countries to enforce similar regulations, does not address basic issues with each of his proposals.  First, if sponsorship of children's programming is cut in half, won't that also cut the incentive of broadcasters to air such programs?  Cutting sponsorship to the bone would seem to guarantee that broadcasters will do the absolute minimum amount of children's programming required, so that they can air programs where there are no advertising restrictions.

These requirements would also seem to make broadcasters into the food police.  Broadcasters will have to educate themselves as to the nutritional qualities of various food products to make sure that nothing impermissible gets on the air.  And where will lines be drawn?  Could a station safely advertise a fast food store if the ads featured only the salads sold by the store - even where that store might also sell not so healthy alternatives?  If definitions are drawn by numerical limits on contents such as sugar, salt and fat (as suggested by the letter), will these limits necessarily lead to advertising the most healthy foods?  Will broadcasters be forced to substitute for parents in making decisions about what their children will eat?

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On Thursday, the FCC issued its Report on violent programming on television, finding that such programming has a negative impact on the well being of children, and suggesting that Congressional action to restrict and regulate such programming would be appropriate.  A summary of the findings of the Commission can be found in our firm's bulletin on the Report, here.  As we point out in our bulletin, the Commission did not adopt this report with a united voice, as both Commissioner Adelstein and McDowell expressed concerns about the thoroughness of the report, the practicality and constitutionality of drawing lines between permitted and prohibited violence in programming, and even whether the government is the proper forum for restricting access to such programming or whether this isn't fundamentally an issue of family and parental control. 

The Report suggests that legislative action to restrict violent programming  or to channel it to certain time periods might be appropriate as parents are often not home when children watch television, and technological controls, like the V-Chip, are ineffective as parents don't know that they exist or, if they are aware of the existence of the controls, they don't know how to activate them.  The Commission also suggests that the ratings given to programs are not always accurate.  An interesting alternate take can be found in an article in Slate, here, citing a study not mentioned by the FCC finding that parents, even when carefully educated about the V-Chip and its uses, do not use it.  This seems to indicate that parents are not as concerned about the issue as is the FCC, and suggests that the real motivation is not restricting what is presented to children, but instead what is available to adults.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As we've discussed before, here, the FCC has been reviewing their power to regulate violent programming on broadcast stations.  Despite the apparent constitutional and practical issues involved in such restrictions (e.g. are Roadrunner cartoons covered?), published reports indicate that a majority of the FCC Commissioners will issue a report asking Congress to give the FCC authority to regulate violent programming.  The Washington Post today published a story stating that the FCC will this week release its report and ask Congress for the authority to regulate not only broadcast stations, but also basic cable programming.  In the indecency area, the Courts have stepped in to prevent the FCC from regulating cable, given its subscription nature and its ability to block specific channels of programming upon request of a subscriber.  If the FCC does in fact ask for the ability to regulate basic cable, this will break new ground, and will surely end up in court.

 At a legal panel in Las Vegas, held in connection with the National Association of Broadcasters Convention, panelists speculated that the Chairman of the Commission and Commissioner Copps favor the report - while Commissioners Adelstein and McDowell are more concerned about the constitutional implications of this action - making for coalitions on this issue different from those that usually are in place on most FCC decisions relating to broadcasting.

This report, which many had expected to be released prior to the NAB Convention, will no doubt provoke heated arguments in Congress, the Courts and at the FCC.  It's one more programming issue in a year where proposing new programming restrictions seems to have become the rage.

• 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

Two interesting stories in major national newspapers highlight the attention that the content of broadcast programming is receiving from regulators - both at the FCC and in Congress.  One story, in the Washington Post, reveals a draft FCC report suggesting that the FCC could regulate violent programming in the same way that it regulates indecent programming, if Congress gives the FCC statutory authority to do so.  In another story, appearing in the Wall Street Journal, critics suggest restrictions on when ads for Viagra and other similar medications could be run on television.  That story also mentions pending legislation to restrict all consumer-directed advertising dealing with prescription drugs. 

Obviously, these proposals for regulation would strike hard at broadcasters - particularly television broadcasters.  Pharmaceutical advertising has become big business for TV companies.  Sure, we've probably all felt uncomfortable at times when a Viagra ad runs in a program we are watching with family members.  But should the government pass laws restricting the the advertising of legal products?  Should we shield viewers from information about these products?  In other contexts, the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on liquor and legal gambling ads.  How would restrictions on legal drugs fair?

And we all know how well the FCC has done in setting out the limits on indecent programming.  Where would lines be drawn on violent programming?  How does one even define violent programming?  For instance, many of the most popular programs on television are medical programs (e.g. Grey's Anatomy, ER, House).   All feature very detailed and sometimes disturbing visuals of medical procedures - though rarely are there detailed depictions of what most people would characterize as "violent" actions - shootings, stabbings, etc.  Would these medical shows fall under any restrictions?  And how would rules deal with broadcasts such as "Saving Private Ryan," which has already received a dispensation from the FCC for its indecent content which, in other programs, would have resulted in FCC fines.  Would its violent content also receive such a pass?

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The new Congress has started its oversight of the FCC, and one of the first topics to be brought up is the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. Presidential candidate and head of the House of Representatives Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee, Dennis Kucinich, was the first to call for hearings about the reintroduction of the doctrine.  Others have joined in that cry, including it in a bill introduced in the House and Senate to reform the media ownership rules. But do these perhaps well-intentioned Congressmen really remember what the Fairness Doctrine meant? Basically, bland broadcasting.

The Fairness Doctrine was, for the most part, declared unconstitutional by the FCC in the late 1980s (though some limited aspects of the policy have persisted until very recently). The Commission decision finding the Doctrine to be unconstitutional made sense, as its application clearly abridged the free speech rights of broadcasters. Basically, the Fairness Doctrine required fair and balanced coverage of all controversial issues of public importance. While that may sound like a good goal (one good enough to be adopted by Fox News), in fact it resulted in bland programming. 

Continue Reading...

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

Yesterday, we wrote about a government task force, in which the FCC is playing a starring role, to study the media's impact on obesity.  Now, press reports indicate that violent programming on TV may be the subject of Congressional scrutiny this year.  An LA Times report cites a number of influential lawmakers as wanting to initiate a government review of violent programming and whether the FCC should regulate that programming.  A study from the FCC on violent programming is expected soon.  That study, coming on the heels of one released by the Parent's Television Council, which we reported on here, may well fuel this Congressional action.

There seems to be an unending list of complaints about the broadcast media, and for each complaint, there seems to be someone ready to introduce a law to do something about it.  Broadcasters need to be diligent and restrained in their conduct, as one Janet Jackson-like incident could result in new legislation getting the momentum necessary to become something more than a line in a campaign speech.  In an editorial, Broadcasting and Cable has urged such restraint.  With an election less than two years away that already appears to be featuring an unprecedented number of Presidential candidates and a large number of fiercely contested Senate races, no one wants to become that campaign issue that results in new regulations on broadcaster's freedoms. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link