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 a recent decision, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau ruled that a tower owner should pay a fine for a single day where the required tower lights were not operational, and where no required monitoring of the tower to discover such outage was taking place.  On top of the penalty for the non-working lights, the FCC also fined the owner for the failure to report a change in ownership of the tower.  The total fine in the case was $4000 (reduced from an initial fine of $13,000 because of the tower owner's past record of compliance).

As with any FCC fine, while the fine was for one day of tower light outage, there was more to the story.  The FCC inspected the tower after receiving a complaint stating that the lights were out on a day that was almost a month before the inspection - indicating that the outage may have been in place for far longer than the one day revealed by the FCC inspection.  The tower owner admitted that the person who was supposed to conduct the required daily inspection of the tower lights had moved from the area in which the tower was located, and the owner did not know exactly when that occurred.  The owner did not get someone new to do the inspection until after the FCC inspection.  And the tower had no automatic monitoring system to determine if the lights were in fact operational.  With these admissions, it seemed clear that there was the potential that there had been a problem for a long time, so perhaps the fine was not unexpected, even though the lights were fixed within hours of the FCC report of the problem, as the issue was a simple one that the tower owner blamed on a careless repair person who had recently visited the site.

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

Many Webcasters who have elected the the royalty rates set by many of the settlement agreements entered into pursuant to the Webcasters Settlement Act must file an election notice with SoundExchange by January 31 to continue to be covered by those settlement agreements.   These agreements were entered into by groups of webcasters and SoundExchange, and allow the webcasters to pay royalties at rates lower than those rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board for 2006-2010.  January 31 is an important date even for those webcasters who are covered by agreements that don't demand an annual election, as most Internet radio operators must make annual minimum fee payments by January 31.  SoundExchange does not send out reminders of these obligations, so Internet Radio operators must remember to make these filings on their own.  The original election forms filed under settlement agreements signed by the NAB and by Sirius XM cover the entire settlement period from 2006-2015, so no election form must be filed each year, though minimum fee payments must still be made.  Note that certain small broadcasters, who need not meet SoundExchange recordkeeping obligations, do need to file an election to certify that they still meet the standards necessary to count as a small broadcaster.  The WSA settlement agreements that cover Pureplay webcasters, Small Commercial webcasters, Noncommercial Educational webcasters and other noncommercial webcasters all are entered into on a year-by-year basis.  Thus, to continue to be covered, parties currently governed by these agreements need to file a Notice of Election to again be covered by these agreements by January 31 (though note that the SoundExchange website provides for filings by February 1, presumably as January 31 is a Sunday).

The election forms are available on the SoundExchange website, though they are not easy to find. The forms that must accompany the annual minimum fees are also on the SoundExchange website.  Note that in some cases there are forms that cover both webcasters who paying under a particular settlement, as well as under the special provisions for small entities that are covered by these same agreements (e.g. Small Pureplay webcasters file a different form than other Pureplay Webcasters even though both are governed by the same agreement.  Similarly Small Broadcasters file a form different than other broadcasters, though both are covered by the same agreement).  These forms can be found at the links below.  Click on the name of the category of webcasters for a link to our article that summarizes the particular settlement, the minimum fees required, and the qualifications for small webcasters under that deal (if there is such a provision):

• Broadcasters minimum fee form - here.
• Small broadcasters election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Pureplay webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Small pureplay election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Small commercial webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Microcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Noncommercial educational webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Other noncommercial webcaster election form - here.  Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Noncommercial microcasters election form - here. Minimum fee payment form - here.
• Satellite radio (for their webcasting operations - a deal that may also fit other commercial webcasters who are not covered by other agreements) minimum fee payment form - here.

Note that there is no specific form for NPR affiliates covered under the NPR settlement, as an organization set up by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting handles all payments and SoundExchange filings.  Other companies providing Internet radio services need to pay attention to these dates - and file the necessary papers and make the required payments by the upcoming deadline. 

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

The FCC has wasted no time in pressing ahead with the discussion of whether the spectrum currently used by local broadcast television stations is being put to the greatest use and whether it should be "re-purposed" for the so-called broadband effort.  This afternoon, the FCC issued a Public Notice soliciting comments by December 21st regarding the demand for spectrum, the factors the FCC should review when considering the re-purposing of TV spectrum, and potential approaches to increasing spectrum availability and efficiency.  Although the Public Notice asks broad, far-ranging policy questions, the comment date for the "specific data" that the Commission seeks to obtain from interested parties is less than three weeks away, which hardly seems adequate for a proper, informed discussion on an issue of this magnitude.  The specific topics of discussion identified by the Commission and details about how to submit comments can be found in the Commission's Notice. 

Among the issues broadcasters will undoubtedly address (and indeed have already begun to address in other forums) is the fact that the forthcoming spectrum crisis -- which seems to have become a given in certain circles -- has not been well substantiated.  Related to that is the notion that broadcasters already have the ability to lease any "excess" digital television spectrum and use the capacity to provide broadband access, mobile services, or virtually anything else under the sun.  Stations will likely suggest that this mechanism will allow the wireless broadband market to tap this spectrum without further government intervention, if and when the demands of the wireless market require it.  Other issues sure to be of discussion is the value of local broadcast stations, the usefulness of free over-the-air broadcasting, the future of broadcast journalism, and the service stations provide to the public, just to name a few.   It will be challenging, to say the least, for commenters to quantify and address any of these significant questions within just 19 days. 

Having just completed the DTV transition six months ago, it seems that broadcasters have barely been given a chance to operate on their digital spectrum and to explore the options afforded by the transition in terms of high-definition, multicasting, data casting, broadband access, and mobile TV, just to name a few, before having to rush to defend its use, or lack thereof.  The Commission's rush to solicit comments is clearly guided by its need to develop a broadband plan early next year, however, the issues raised by today's Public Notice are among the most significant it has ever attempted to address, certainly with respect to broadcasting and mass media.  It goes without saying, but there is much, much more to be said about these issues, so stay tuned.   And see our earlier blog entries (including here) for further thoughts on the matter. 

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

By December 1, 2009, all commercial and noncommercial digital television (DTV) stations must electronically file a FCC Form 317 with the Commission reporting on whether the station has provided any ancillary and supplementary services over their digital spectrum during the twelve-month period ending on September 30, 2009.

Under the Commission's Rules, in addition to providing free over-the-air broadcast television, DTV stations are permitted to offer services of any nature, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, on an ancillary or supplementary basis.  Some examples of the kinds of services that may be provided include computer software distribution, data transmissions, teletext, interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, audio signals, and subscription video.

All DTV stations -- regardless of whether the station holds a DTV license or is operating pursuant to Special Temporary Authority (STA), program test authority (PTA), or some other authority -- must file a Form 317 reporting whether or not it provided such services and whether it generated any income from such services. If the station did provide such ancillary services, then the FCC wants to know about it. More importantly, if the station generated revenue from the provision of those services, then the FCC wants its 5% cut of the gross revenues derived from such service.  The Form 317 is very brief, soliciting information about the license and the types of services provided, if any, and must be filed electronically through the CDBS filing system.

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