Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • At its regular monthly Open Meeting, the FCC adopted a Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration which reconfigures the Upper C-band (3.7-4.2 GHz) for terrestrial wireless use.  This will make available spectrum in a portion of the band (3.98-4.14 GHz) to be auctioned to wireless users, with another portion of the band acting as a guard band (4.14-4.16 GHz).  The Order requires clearing of incumbent operators from the band, including earth stations that recently relocated from the lower C-band such as those used by broadcasters who receive satellite-delivered programming.  The Order establishes a deadline of June 30, 2031 for relocation of all incumbent operators from the band (with operators in some larger markets needing to clear the band by December 30, 2030).  As with the previous lower C-band transition, the Order states that incumbent operators will be reimbursed for certain relocation costs. 
  • The FCC also released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which makes significant changes to its space and earth station rules.  For earth stations, the changes adopted in the Report and Order include extending license terms to 20 years; allowing earth stations to be licensed on a nationwide, non-site basis; permitting conditional grants for earth stations while frequency coordination remains ongoing under certain circumstances; and standardizing and streamlining earth station application procedures and processing.  In the FNPRM, the FCC seeks comments on several issues including whether to retain rules for receive-only earth stations, possible revisions to certain earth station technical rules and definitions, and further refinements to the nationwide, non-site earth station license rules.  Comments and reply comments are due 30 and 60 days, respectively, after the item’s publication in the Federal Register. 
  • The FCC filed its brief opposing the Court challenge by several Democratic candidates to the FCC Media Bureau’s Public Notice that extended Lowest Unit Rates to joint fundraising committees and federal political parties where their ads are coordinated and authorized by federal candidates.  The FCC argued that, procedurally, the challengers could not raise these arguments because they did not have “standing” to challenge the Public Notice as they were not harmed by the notice (as they could themselves take advantage of the ruling by using joint fundraising committees or coordinating with their parties – that only broadcasters are really harmed by the lower rates, and they are not involved in the appeal) and because the Public Notice can’t yet be appealed to the courts as it is not a final action of the full Commission which has not yet ruled on the challenges brought by the candidates.  Substantively, the FCC argued that FEC rules say that joint fundraising committees are in fact “authorized committees” of the candidate and thus they should get LUR, and that the FCC has routinely advised broadcasters in the past that coordinated buys with political parties get LUR, the only difference is that, in light of a recent Supreme Court decision, there is more money available to the parties, and that should not change the policy that has been in place for many years.  See our note here on the FCC Public Notice and our Broadcast Law Blog article here on the pending litigation.  The Court is to hear oral arguments in this case on August 7 in hopes of resolving the issues before the LUR period for the November election opens in early September.   
  • The National Association of Broadcasters announced that NextGen TV is now available in the top 25 TV markets following the launch of ATSC 3.0 service by 5 TV stations in the Cleveland, OH market this week.  The NAB stated that “NextGen TV is more than a technology upgrade,” and “is a pathway to a stronger, more resilient local broadcasting system that enhances public safety, supports local journalism and ensures communities have access to trusted, free, over-the-air service when it matters most.”  The NAB also stated that “NextGen TV helps ensure local broadcasters can continue serving every community, free and over the air, including enhancing access to marquee live sports and other major local events that bring communities together.”
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau granted a Lexington, Kentucky TV station’s assignment application, resulting in the assignee owning two TV stations in that market.  DIRECTV filed a petition to deny against the application, alleging that the applicants failed to show that the assignment was in the public interest and arguing that the assignment would lead to higher retransmission consent fees.  Citing its recent approvals of TV station assignment applications where DIRECTV raised similar arguments (see our notes here, here, here, here, and here), the Bureau again found that a special public interest showing was not required for applications complying with the Local TV Ownership Rule’s two-station limit, and that DIRECTV’s additional arguments about the transactions’ harms were speculative.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we posted an article that discussed the debate about the FCC’s proposed plan to raise the 39% national TV ownership cap.  We also, in light of a recent lawsuit against a radio broadcaster for using copyrighted photos on its Facebook page without consent of the copyright holder, posted an article that discussed how using photos on social media sites without permission can cause legal issues for broadcasters. 

This week, there was a report in the broadcast trade press about a lawsuit filed against a North Dakota radio station for allegedly posting on its Facebook page a copyrighted photograph of a well-known rock musician– without getting permission from the professional photographer who took that picture and owned the copyright.  This was not a situation where some listener posted a picture on the station’s site, but allegedly one where the radio station posted on its own Facebook page the photo to illustrate a post on that site.  We have written many times about how litigious photographers can be about the unauthorized use of their photos online (see, for instance, our stories here,  and here).  And we have also written (for instance, here) about how the unauthorized use of copyrighted photos and videos even on the social media sites of broadcasters and other businesses can raise many of these same issues.  But, as it has been a couple of years since we last posted on the topic, it seemed to be worthwhile to highlight these concerns once again. 

The unauthorized use of photos in social media posts, including tweets on X and posts on Facebook, can really be an issue for all sorts of businesses.  Even the Donald Trump campaign was reportedly sued during his first run for President for his son’s tweet of a photograph of a bowl of Skittles, which he used to compare Syrian refugees to the candy treats. As we have written before (see our posts here and here ), just because someone posts a picture on the Internet, even on a social media or photo sharing site, does not give others the right to exploit that photo, especially on a digital site of a commercial business.  Posting on a social media site may give the social media site owner the right to exploit posted content consistent with their terms of use, but the person who created the content does not give up their underlying copyright in any creative work to third parties.  Just because you can easily right-click an image to make a copy of it does not always give you the right to use that image for your own commercial purposes.  The Skittles suit represents an instance of a photographer using copyright law to enforce these rights, apparently as he did not agree with the political sentiment expressed by the tweet in which the photo was used.  But not too long ago, there was significant publicity about a lawsuit, now reportedly settled, about a New Jersey newspaper suing a cable news network because one of its personalities used a well-known 9-11 photo from the paper as the profile picture on that personality’s Facebook page – without first securing permission. 

But isn’t that what these social media sites are for – sharing content?

Continue Reading Using Photos on Social Media Sites Without Permission Can Cause Legal Headaches

Last week, the FCC released a draft Report and Order which, if adopted at its August regular monthly open meeting, will repeal the 39% cap that currently limits the nationwide reach of local television station owners.  That cap prohibits one owner from having interests in TV stations reaching more than 39% of the nation’s TV households.  Computation of the 39% reach assumes that any TV station in a Nielsen TV market reaches all of the TV households in that market.  However, it also includes a 50% discount for UHF stations, a relic of a previous era when VHF stations (those on channels 2 through 13) dominated and UHF stations were considered disadvantaged and thus worthy of being counted as only half the audience reach (a dynamic that is considered to have been reversed in the digital broadcasting world).  Yet, as we wrote here, that UHF discount is still in place.

The Commission’s proposal is to eliminate the cap, but to conduct a case-by-case review of any proposed acquisition that would take an owner above 39% (while still using the 50% UHF discount).  In reading the draft Order, it appears that the FCC would be starting from a presumption that the nationwide reach of a particular broadcaster is not a public interest problem – unless someone shows that it is.  The draft Order states that there are many other video entertainment delivery competitors with nationwide reach – including the TV networks, cable networks and, more importantly in today’s world, all of the streaming companies.  According to the FCC, just being able to deliver programming on a nationwide basis does not raise issues for consumers, as a consumer has the choice of many different national programming providers.  Issues may be more likely to arise on the local level if access to local news and information is limited.  However, those questions of local ownership are not being considered in this proceeding, which is looking only at the limits on the ability of one owner to own stations that have a greater nationwide reach than currently allowed.  Local ownership limits are being considered in the Quadrennial Review proceeding, likely to be resolved later this year.

Continue Reading FCC Plans to Raise the 39% National TV Ownership Cap – What are the Proposals and What are the Issues?

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC released a draft Report and Order, which if adopted at its August 6 regular monthly Open Meeting, would repeal the 39% national TV ownership cap.  Instead of the cap, the FCC will do a case-by-case review of any proposed TV combination exceeding the current cap to see if it is in the public interest by weighing factors including the transaction’s potential benefits (e.g., increased local programing and innovation) and its potential harms (e.g., decreased local programming, increased retransmission consent fees, and loss of communications workers).  The draft order states that the national cap is no longer needed because of changes in the media marketplace.  According to the draft order, repealing the cap would allow TV broadcasters to better fulfill their public interest obligations, including through increased investment in local programming and by providing leverage (through increased audience reach) in the local broadcasters’ negotiations with the national networks.  Even though the cap was set by Congress, the draft finds that the FCC can repeal it as the FCC has broad authority to adopt, modify, or eliminate its broadcast ownership rules and to act in the public interest, and Congress did not eliminate this authority when it set the cap.
    • The FCC published a News Release highlighting points made in FCC Chairman Carr’s published op-ed in Breitbart announcing the FCC’s upcoming vote to repeal the cap.  Carr pointed to a purported lack of trust among Americans in legacy national media as the justification for repealing the cap, claiming that “New York and Hollywood interests have steamrolled those local TV stations and the broader media market in recent years in ways that run directly counter to the regulatory framework that Congress and the FCC put in place.”  Carr also said that national networks’ “programs naturally reflect the values of the New York and Hollywood executives that produce them,” and that “this power imbalance has contributed to a steady decline in locally produced news—and with it, a weakening of the public’s trust in the media.”
    • FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement signaling her opposition to the repeal of the cap.  Gomez called the repeal an “unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration [who] will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families who depend on local stations for news and emergency alerts.”  Gomez stated that “a free and diverse media landscape depends on real limits on how much of the public airwaves any one company can control,” and that “Congress set the 39 percent national ownership cap in federal law, and only Congress has the authority to raise or eliminate it.”
  • In his speech on election integrity issues, President Trump said “In a rare move, NBC and ABC fake news have both said that they would not cover this speech. They knew what it was about, because of the fact that they don’t like the topic, because they know how corrupt our system is and they don’t want to reveal it.  They and the others in the media are part of a plot.  They want to continue this fraud for whatever reason. They want to keep it going. They want to protect the radical left. They can’t have a great country and that’s true; you can’t have a great country without free and fair elections. Fraud like this should mean a revocation of their licenses. They use our public multibillion dollar in value airways for absolutely no money.  Fraud like this should mean a revocation of their licenses.” 
    • When asked in an interview (at about 4:50) before the speech about whether networks had an obligation to carry it, Chairman Carr stated that broadcast TV networks “should want” to carry President’s primetime speeches.  Carr said that “Anytime the president of the United States stands up there in prime time to deliver information or news or content, I think broadcasters should want to make sure the American public can see that,” and that “I do think that this is something that the American people have every right to be able to get over the airwaves.”  As to whether airing the President’s speech is part of broadcasters’ public interest obligations, Carr said that “I’ll avoid sort of generating the headline on this one, but I do think it’s one that a lot of people are going to be interested in and want to see.”
    • On BlueSky, Commissioner Gomez said about the President’s call for revocation: “The FCC has no authority to punish a station for refusing to air a blatantly political speech. This is a naked attempt to bully broadcasters, and the FCC should have no part in it” and “It is ridiculous to call for broadcasters to lose their license simply for making the same editorial decisions they’ve made under presidents of both parties, especially when the remarks were still available to anyone who wanted to watch them online.”
  • The FCC released its Quarterly Broadcast Station Totals.  The release shows that compared to the same release from a year ago, there were 60 fewer AM stations and 42 fewer commercial FM stations, but 117 more noncommercial FM stations.  There were also 12 more commercial UHF TV stations but 6 fewer VHF TV stations; 1 more noncommercial UHF TV station, and 3 more noncommercial VHF TV stations.

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau announced that the upcoming new noncommercial educational FM translator reserved band (88.1-91.9 MHz) filing window has been moved from August to November to accommodate applicants affiliated with schools on summer holidays and other noncommercial companies who argued that an August window did not give them enough time to prepare their applications.  The filing window will now open at 12:01 a.m. ET on November 4, 2026, and will close at 6:00 p.m. ET on November 17, 2026.  The associated filing freeze on all reserved and non-reserved band LPFM, FM translator, and FM booster station minor modification applications that was to begin on July 10 to facilitate the filing window will now begin at 11:59 p.m. ET on October 2, 2026, and will continue until the filing window closes.  See our Broadcast Law Blog article here for more on the filing window and the filing freeze’s rescheduling.
  • The NAB announced that it has released its new Broadcast Station Self-Inspection Guides for AM, FM, and TV.  These guides, prepared in conjunction with the Society for Broadcast Engineers, replace guides that once were furnished by the FCC but which the FCC has not updated in 20 years.  The guides help broadcasters to ensure that their operations comply with FCC rules. The guides are free to NAB and SBE members. 
  • The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with iHeartMedia to resolve its investigation into iHeart’s purported violations of the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules.  The investigation began with allegations from Senator Blackburn that iHeart was coercing artists to perform at its events for free or at a reduced cost either through threats of withholding airplay for those artists’ music, or by promising them greater airplay if they performed.  iHeart neither admitted that it violated the sponsorship identification rules nor agreed to pay any sort of penalty.  Instead, for 36 months, iHeart must, among other things, implement a compliance program to avoid any future violations and to report to the Commission on the bands playing at major iHeart events and the airplay these bands receive before and after the event.  We wrote more about this Consent Decree and its meaning for broadcasters in this article on our Broadcast Law Blog.
    • FCC Chairman Carr released a statement regarding the Consent Decree, stating that the FCC “is committed to ensuring that artists – especially up and coming ones – get a fair shake in their dealings with the broadcast industry,” and that the Consent Decree “adds significant new protections and offers the FCC greater transparency to ensure that artists retain their right to decide when and where they will perform.”
  • The Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing that July 9 was the effective date of certain rules adopted by the FCC in its December 2025 Report and Order, which revised the FCC’s rules applicable to Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations (see our note here).  The rules taking effect on July 9 cover topics including requiring that applications for new facilities exceeding permissible interference levels include a copy of the interference acceptance agreement between affected parties; allowing LPTV and TV translator stations that are sharing channels to cease sharing and seek a license for a non-shared channel by filing a major modification specifying a new channel; and requiring Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations to use call signs matching their service designation (“-LD” for LPTV, “-CD” for Class A, and “-D” for TV translators) but grandfathering existing station call signs.  The Bureau noted that stations with non-complaint call signs that are not grandfathered have until July 9, 2027 to change their call sign to a rule complaint call sign.  The Bureau also provided guidance for disclosing other attributable broadcast interests in new and major change LPTV and TV translator applications, and noted that it will issuing a separate Public Notice regarding the treatment of mutually exclusive new and major change LPTV and TV translator applications (which may exist from recent filings arising from the lifting of the freeze on such applications – see our articles here and here).
  • The Media Bureau granted iHeartMedia’s petition for declaratory ruling seeking FCC approval of several new and existing foreign investors’ ownership interests pursuant to Section 310(b) of the Communications Act.  Absent FCC approval, Section 310(b) prohibits foreign entities, individuals, and governments from holding ownership interests of more than 20% in an FCC licensee and ownership interests of more than 25% in a U.S. entity that directly or indirectly controls an FCC licensee.  The Bureau found that approving iHeart’s foreign investment above the 25% threshold was in the public interest as it facilitated access to foreign capital which would allow iHeart to better compete with other media companies, enhance its programming, and potentially encourage reciprocal investment opportunities for U.S. companies in foreign markets.  The Bureau conditioned its approval on iHeart’s continued compliance with its 2020 Letter of Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, which requires iHeart to report certain changes in ownership, control, or operations, and to file an annual compliance report.  iHeart must also monitor its foreign equity and voting interests, obtain FCC approval for any new foreign investors holding 5% or greater ownership interests in iHeart, obtain FCC approval for any foreign individual or entity holding a controlling interest in iHeart, and promptly disclose any noncompliance with the FCC’s foreign ownership rules.
  • The Media Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to substitute Channel 285A for vacant Channel 248A at Whitehall, Michigan.  The Bureau stated that a recent staff engineering analysis found the vacant Channel 248A does not comply with the FCC’s minimum distance separation requirements for FM stations and that replacing Channel 248A with Channel 258A would resolve the existing short-spacing conflicts to 3 nearby FM stations.  Comments and reply comments responding to the NPRM are due August 24 and September 8, respectively. 

In addition to the articles on the extension of the NCE translator window and the iHeart Consent Decree, on our Broadcast Law Blog, we wrote about the Blog’s 20th anniversary, and about some of the legal and policy issues that have remained unresolved throughout that period.

This week, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with iHeartMedia to resolve its investigation into whether iHeart violated the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules. Interestingly, iHeart does not admit that it violated any rules, nor does the FCC suggest any specific conduct by iHeart violated any rule.  So why the Consent Decree?  The Decree say that it resolves an investigation into whether iHeart “violated the Commission’s sponsorship identification rules in connection with allegations that iHeart provided artists additional airplay on the Company’s radio stations in exchange for the artists’ performances at Company events, without the disclosure required under the Commission’s sponsorship identification laws.”  What is the disclosure that is required, and when is it required?  Again, the Decree does not make clear what identification would be required, nor does it say exactly what circumstances would trigger the requirement for a sponsorship identification.  So we have to look at the terms of the Decree itself to see if we can piece together exactly what is prohibited and when on-air sponsorship identifications are required. What we ultimately find is that the Decree really conveys a message that applies to broadcasters in many situations – when the station gets free or discounted “stuff” (whether it be a band’s appearance at a station event or free meals at a local restaurant) in exchange for something that is broadcast over the air, the audience needs to know that the airplay was sponsored.

The first place to look in trying to draw some specific guidance from this Decree is at its history.  The Decree stems from an Enforcement Advisory released by the Enforcement Bureau in February 2025, after Senator Blackburn from Tennessee alleged that bands had complained to her about some station practices in strongarming them into playing at station events for free or at reduced pay. The 2025 Advisory warned that any “deals” for bands to play at station events in exchange for more airplay, or any threats (express or implied) to reduce airplay if a band did not appear at an event, would be seen as a violation of the payola and sponsorship identification rules.  The Bureau referred to such threats as “covert manipulation of radio airplay.”  The Advisory states “[w]hen payola causes stations to broadcast programming based on their financial interests at the expense of community responsiveness, the practice is inconsistent with localism.” We wrote more about the Advisory when it was released, and included a broader discussion of the payola rules. 

Continue Reading FCC Consent Decree With iHeart Discusses how Exchanging Airplay for Discounts or Free Stuff Can Trigger Sponsorship Identification Requirements, Including for Songs Played in Exchange for a Band’s Appearance at Station Events

In June 2006, I started writing the Broadcast Law Blog, discussing issues like the broadcast ownership rules, music licensing issues, FCC filing windows for new broadcast stations, AM radio improvements, political broadcasting issues, and an upcoming technology transition for digital television.  It is funny how these same issues, or ones very close to these issues, are still what we are writing about 20 years later.  And they are keeping us busy so that, somehow, with all that is going on in the media world right now, and with a heavy June schedule of speaking at broadcaster’s conventions around the country, I missed noting the 20th anniversary of our first post on June 11, 2006. 

20 years ago, we promised to try to give our take on the important news of the day for broadcasters – and noted that our comments would go beyond traditional broadcasting to cover other media issues saying:

Broadcasting is no longer an island unto itself. Instead, each day it becomes more and more clear that the world that traditional broadcasting inhabits is one that goes far beyond those narrow areas that the FCC has traditionally defined as a broadcast service. Thus, we will be pointing out developments and legal decisions that impact not only traditional over-the-air radio and television stations, but also those in the myriad “new media” that are now so crucial to any understanding of the broadcast industry. Media “convergence,” which has for so long been nothing more than a buzz word thrown around to make it seem like we’re thinking about the future, is finally here, and cannot be ignored in a discussion of the broadcast industry.

Continue Reading We Missed Our Anniversary! – 20 Years of the Broadcast Law Blog

The FCC had scheduled an August 2026 filing window for licensees of noncommercial AM or FM stations and LPFM operators to file applications for new FM translators in the Reserved Band (88.1 MHz to 91.9 MHz) (see our articles here and here on the filing window).  However, after the filing window was announced, CBI, Inc., representing college broadcasters, filed a letter with the Commission that objected to the timing as, during summer months when many schools are on summer breaks and students and administrative staff are often not on campus, getting the necessary approvals for filing and taking the steps needed to prepare an application would be very difficult.  That letter received support from other operators of noncommercial stations who felt that the 60 days from the FCC’s announcement of the deadlines and filing rules was simply insufficient to prepare for the window.  This week, the FCC responded to these complaints, and announced that it has moved the filing window to November.

The window will now open at 12:01 am EST on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, and close at 6:00 pm EST on Tuesday, November 17, 2026. As we noted in our article on the filing application rules, by the November 17 date, applicants need to have complete applications providing all the information necessary to establish the applicant’s claims for points to be used in the FCC’s “points system” to choose between mutually exclusive applicants (applicants who, for technical reasons, cannot both be granted without destructive  interference)(for more on the points system, see our articles here and here).

Associated with the translator window was a filing freeze on applications by LPFM stations, FM translators, and FM boosters both in the Reserved Band as well as the rest of the FM band to provide a stable database for the planning of applications to be filed in the window.  That freeze was to have begun on Friday, July 10 but has now been postponed given the later start of the filing window.  The freeze will begin after 11:59 p.m. ET, Friday, October 2, 2026, and continue through 6:00 pm EST on Tuesday, November 17, 2026.

So noncommercial broadcasters interested in new FM translators now have more time to prepare their applications.  But don’t delay, as these deadlines have a way of arriving far more quickly than you expect. 

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the President’s power to remove independent federal agency heads by upholding his firing of an FTC Commissioner—a decision seemingly giving the President the power to fire members of most Congressionally created “independent agencies” that exercise executive duties including interpreting and administering laws.  This likely includes the FCC, the SEC, and many other government commissions and agencies. The decision overturned a 1935 Supreme Court decision called Humphrey’s Executor, which had limited the President’s power to remove the heads of independent agencies.  This decision could lead to more partisan administrative agencies with larger policy shifts from one Presidential administration to another. On our Broadcast Law Blog this coming week, we plan to write more about the impact of this decision. 
    • President Trump posted on Truth Social that the Slaughter decision was a “BIG WIN” and a “Historic and Unprecedented Ruling” and noted that the decision “greatly increas[es] Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed!”
    • FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement critical of the Slaughter decision, stating that it “puts at risk how Congress intended independent agencies to function in American democracy.”  She stated that “Independent agencies exist to make decisions based on facts and the law…. [W]hen commissioners can be removed for their policy views rather than for cause, the inevitable result is an agency that pulls its punches and defers to political winds rather than the record before it.” Gomez also stated that “we are already seeing what political control of this agency looks like in practice, through investigations targeting broadcasters and government critics for coverage this administration finds unfavorable.”
  • The Supreme Court also released its decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, holding that federal political parties can coordinate their campaign activities, including their advertising spending, with their candidates.  Before this decision, parties were only able to spend a small amount of money in coordination with their federal candidates. Based on a March Public Notice released by the FCC’s Media Bureau stating that coordinated party spending is to be accorded lowest unit rates in the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election, the Court’s decision will likely mean much more political advertising will be at lowest unit rates as parties, who previously had to buy at issue rates, will now be able to place ads authorized by federal candidates at the LUC rates.  For more on this decision and some of the issues it leaves unanswered, see our Broadcast Law Blog article here.
  • The FCC released the full text of its Report and Order and Further NPRM adopted at its regular monthly Open Meeting last week to increase the security of the Emergency Alert System (EAS).  As we detailed in our article here, the Order requires that broadcasters, within 60 days, comply with new rules setting out a three-point program to secure their EAS equipment, studio transmitter links, and any remotely managed equipment used for routing, processing, or inserting content into their programming streams.  The requirements include stricter password controls, updates to EAS systems and equipment, and putting all parts of the system behind a firewall or otherwise isolating it from other Internet-connected devices.  The FNPRM seeks comments on several other proposals including whether to require authentication of all EAS alerts before transmission, taking other steps to make EAS alerts more accurately targeted, and whether software-based EAS encoders/decoders should be allowed in addition to the current hardware devices.
  • The FCC released two draft items on satellite earth station issues that it will consider at its next regular monthly Open Meeting on July 22:
    • The FCC released a draft Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which, if adopted, would make significant changes to its space and earth station rules.  For earth stations, the changes would include extending license terms to 20 years; allowing earth stations to be licensed on a nationwide, non-site basis; permitting conditional grants for earth stations while frequency coordination remains ongoing under certain circumstances; and standardizing and streamlining earth station application procedures and processing.  In the FNPRM, the FCC seeks comments on several issues including whether to retain rules for receive-only earth stations, possible revisions to certain earth station technical rules and definitions, and further refinements to the nationwide, non-site earth station license rules.
    • The FCC also released a draft Report and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and Order on Reconsideration, which, if adopted, would reconfigure the Upper C-band (3.7-4.2 GHz) for terrestrial wireless flexible use through an auction of a portion of the band (3.98-4.14 GHz) with a portion of the band acting as a guard band (4.14-4.16 GHz).  This will require the clearing of incumbent operators from the 4.0-4.16 GHz portion of the band, including earth stations that recently relocated from the lower C-band.  This will include broadcasters who receive satellite-delivered programming in that band.  The draft item establishes a deadline of June 30, 2031 for relocation of all incumbent operators from the 4.0-4.16 GHz portion of the band (which some operators will have to clear by December 30, 2030).  As with the previous lower C-band transition, the draft item states that incumbent operators will be reimbursed for certain relocation costs.  The draft item also states that incumbent operators remaining in the 4.16-4.2 GHz portion of band will receive interference protection. 
  • The FCC announced that June 30 is the effective date of its May Report and Order streamlining Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) filing obligations, which are voluntary for broadcasters.  While under FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel, the FCC proposed requiring TV and radio stations to report their operating status during disasters in the FCC’s DIRS database (see our note here), the Order did not make the filing mandatory.  The FCC did adopt a “one-click” filing option to reduce all DIRS participants’ filing burdens.
  • The FCC issued a $40,000 fine against an individual in Waterbury, Connecticut for operating a pirate radio broadcast station.  The pirate broadcaster now has 30 days to pay the fine, or the FCC may refer the case to the U.S. Department of Justice.  The FCC itself cannot sue to collect fines or take actions against individuals who ignore these fines.  It must rely on the DOJ to enforce them in Court.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, in addition to the articles on the steps broadcasters are required to take to secure their EAS systems and on the impact of the Supreme Court decision on political parties being able to coordinate their spending with their candidates on broadcasters’ obligations to offer lowest unit rate to party ads and, we highlighted July regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters.

While most of us are enjoying our 4th of July holidays, we thought it important to publish this article, stemming from a Supreme Court decision last week, right away as broadcasters in many states are or soon will be dealing with the issues it discusses.  Enjoy the holiday, but be sure to consider these issues as soon as you return to work. 

It is unusual for Supreme Court decisions to have a direct day-to-day impact on regulations affecting broadcasters.  But this past week, there were not one but two cases that are likely to have such a direct impact.  One was the case confirming the President’s virtually unfettered power to fire Commissioners at agencies such as the FCC, the impact of which we plan to write about next week.  The second was the decision allowing political parties to coordinate spending with their candidates – a decision that, unless pending challenges to a recent FCC Media Bureau Notice are successful, will likely bring far more political spending under the “lowest unit rate” (aka lowest unit charge) obligations of broadcasters.  Because this change could have a significant effect on the bottom line of broadcasters in states with competitive federal political races, and as many questions remain unanswered about the FCC’s Notice, we need to look closely at the issues that arise from the interplay of the Media Bureau Notice and the Court’s decision.

The FCC Public Notice was released in March and purported to simply remind broadcasters about their lowest unit rate obligations to political candidates in the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election.  But, in giving that reminder, it set out two policies that had never before been articulated by the FCC.  While Section 315 of the Communications Act says that lowest unit rates apply only to candidates, the Notice says that the LUC rates in fact apply to other political committees when the ads are “authorized” by the candidate.  The Notice also says that joint fundraising committees and ads by political parties, when authorized by candidates, are also entitled to LUC.  In reaching this decision, the Media Bureau relies on the Federal Election Commission’s definitions of authorized committees, concluding without discussion that once a committee is authorized under FEC rules, it is entitled to LUC even though the committee is not the “candidate” – and even though Section 315 limits LUC rights to “candidates,” not authorized committees as defined by the FEC.  How did the Bureau reach this decision?

Continue Reading More Political Ads at Lowest Unit Rates?  – Supreme Court Allows Candidates and Parties to Coordinate, and an FCC Media Bureau Notice Says Coordinated Ad Buys Should be Given LUC