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

In two just released cases, the FCC fined television stations $8000 each for failing to publicize the location of their Children's Television Programming Reports for an entire license renewal period (the cases can be found here and here).  The FCC found that any remedial steps taken by the licensees after they discovered their failures at renewal time did not excuse the failure to comply during the license term.  The Commission, in the orders, cites a survey that found "virtually all of the stations in the sample complied with the requirement to publicize the existence and location of the stations' Children's Television Programming Reports", thus dismissing arguments that the rules were vague and unclear as they do not spell out how much publicity must be given to the location of these reports.  Based on these decisions, it's obvious that not all stations in fact got the message.

These cases remind all television broadcasters that they do in fact have obligations to publicize the location of their children's television reports and the contact person at their stations for information and comments about programming directed to children.  For more information on a television station's Children's Television obligations (or, as many broadcasters know them, the Kid-vid rules) under the Communications Act and the FCC rules, including the periodic notice that should be given by television stations, check out the Davis Wright Tremaine Quarterly Reminder, the most recent of which can be found here. 

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

In several decisions released on Friday (here, here and here), the FCC fined Class A TV stations for not meeting their obligations under the Children's Television Rules to notify their viewers about the location of their public file containing information about the educational and informational programming they broadcast directed to children, and for failure to inform local program guides of the target ages for this educational and informational programming.  Class A TV stations are essentially LPTV stations that, early in the decade, were certified for Class A status, meaning that they cannot be displaced by subsequent authorizations for new full power stations or changes in the facilities of full power TV stations. These stations had to certify that they broadcast at least three hours of local programming per week, and also had to meet all the other obligations that are applicable to full power stations (but not necessarily to other Low Power Television Stations), e.g. local main studio, local public file, children's television obligations.  A fine of $4000 was imposed on the stations for these failures.

The cases remind Class A stations of their public interest obligations.  It also reminds all stations of their obligations to publicize the existence of its children's television compliance records, and to insure that program guides not only know about their educational and informational programming but also about the ages to which this programming is targeted.  Little details, but details that cost many licensees money for their forgetfulness during the last license renewal cycle. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On Friday, the FCC showed released two decisions – both dealing with a handful of inadvertent violations of the Commission’s rules on advertising directed to children. In one case, a licensee admitted in its license renewal application 4 violations of the rules and was fined $8,000. In another, the licensee admitted 8 violations, received no fine at all, instead being only admonished for its errors. Why the difference?

The FCC justified the difference in treatment based on the nature of the violations.  In reality, the station that did not receive any fine actually broadcast more commercial material in excess of the limits on the amount of advertising permitted in children's program than did the station that was fined. The reason – “program length commercials.” These are instances where, in a commercial message, a character from the surrounding program appears. In that situation, the FCC considers the entire program as a commercial, and thus the violation is considered much more serious than a mere overage in the time limits on commercial material in children’s programs. The station that received the fine had 3 program length commercials, while the station that was not fined simply ran more commercial matter than permitted by the rules – and did not have any program length commercials. But are these distinctions really justified?

• 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

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?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link