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 Order adopted in June that requires broadcasters to quickly adopt new security practices to protect their EAS systems was published in the Federal Register, setting September 29 as the deadline for implementation of these new requirements.  The requirements that must be implemented by September 29 include having strong passwords for access to any part of a broadcaster’s program chain that is connected to the internet, implementing the latest security updates to all programming hardware and software, and putting all access to broadcaster’s program chain behind a firewall.  See our Broadcast Law Blog article here for more on these requirements.
    • Also published in the Federal Register was the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was part of the June Order.  The FCC seeks comments on 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.  Comments are due by August 31 and reply comments by September 29.
  • The deadlines for the submission of applications and minimum opening bid amounts for Auction 114, an auction of 132 construction permits for new FM stations, were announced in a Public Notice from the FCC’s Office of Economics and Analysis (OEA). The auction, as we wrote here, was announced in May and bidding is scheduled to begin on February 2, 2027.  Parties interested in participating in the auction must file their “short-form” construction permit applications on FCC Form 175, in which they must specify which of the 132 vacant FM allotments (see list here) they intend to bid, between 12:00 p.m. ET on September 14, 2026 and 6:00 p.m. ET on September 30, 2026.  These applications can also specify specific coordinates for tower sites an applicant plans to use for any channel on which they plan to bid to protect that site from future applications by other FM stations.  Auction participants must make their “upfront payments” by 6:00 p.m. ET on December 3, 2026.  Upfront payments are refundable deposits to establish an applicant’s eligibility to participate in the auction and must be in an amount sufficient to cover the minimum bids for all of the channels which the bidder ends up winning in the auction.  The Public Notice provides more details on bidding procedures for the auction.
    • To facilitate Auction 114, the FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing that a filing freeze on all FM commercial and noncommercial minor change applications will open on September 14, 2026 and will close on September 30, 2026.  The Bureau explained that temporary freeze is designed to avoid conflicts between the any minor change application and auction proposals, thus promoting certainty and speed in the auction process.  The Bureau also stated that any FM minor change applications filed before the filing freeze begins must protect the reference coordinates of each of the vacant allotments being auctioned in Auction 114.
  • In an interview, Chairman Carr reportedly stated that the FCC is investigating certain changes in TV network affiliations in various markets around the country to see if these affiliation changes are in the public interest.  In some recent cases, the new home of a major network affiliation is on a digital subchannel. Carr indicated that he was concerned that some of these changes could weaken affiliates bargaining positions with national TV networks.  As we have noted before, the Media Bureau under this Chairman has noted its concerns about the relationship between networks and their affiliates and asked for public comment, including asking whether too much network power weakens the local service of TV stations, contrary to the public interest.
    • In another extensive interview with Politico, he explained in depth how he sees his actions against broadcasters related to the content that they broadcast as being consistent with the public interest mandate of the Commission and with the First Amendment.  He also answers questions about the extent to which the President has directed some of the actions of the FCC.  He concludes by saying of his regulatory approach “…what we’ve been trying to do is you take a little bit of dereg, a little bit of reg, you put it together, and we make telecom great again.”
  • FCC Commissioner Gomez released a statement following the closing of the public comment period on the Disney/ABC’s TV station license renewal applications, which the FCC ordered to be filed early (see our notes here and here).  Gomez noted the great number of comments filed in support of Disney, and stated that these commenters showed that “they believe in the value of their local news, they trust those who cover their communities, and they understand that the FCC has no business deciding who is a journalist and what counts as real news,” while “a small number of partisan voices tried to hijack this process into a referendum on a network they dislike.”  Gomez further stated that “the FCC has no authority to police the ideological balance of the airwaves, and no matter what this Commission does next, the record now makes clear that this was never a genuine search for the public interest.”
  • The FCC released a Small Entity Compliance Guide regarding compliance with the revised Class A, LPTV, and TV translator station rules that the FCC adopted in its December Report and Order (see our note here).  The revised rules include updating displacement and channel sharing application procedures; establishing a maximum relocation distance for all minor modification applications of 49.1 kilometers from a station’s current antenna reference coordinates; formalizing procedures for communities of license changes (also requiring a station’s protected contour to overlap a boundary of its community of license and requiring that stations file for a rule-compliant community of license within 6 months of the new rule’s effective date); requiring stations to use call signs matching their service designation (“-LD” for LPTV, “-CD” for Class A, and “-D” for TV translators) but grandfathering existing call signs for only LPTV and Class A stations; requiring all LPTV stations to broadcast an operational video programming signal (test patterns and still pictures with unrelated audio are insufficient); and formalizing procedures for changing a station’s classification from LPTV to TV translator (or vice versa).  We noted here that some of these rule changes took effect July 9 (while some others still require the Office of Management and Budget’s approval before taking effect), and also noted the Media Bureau announcement that stations with call signs that are not grandfathered (including all TV translators not using the “-D” service designation) have until July 9, 2027 to change their call sign to a rule-compliant one.
  • The Media Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to substitute VHF Channel 10 at Elko, Nevada for UHF Channel 20 as the Elko TV station asking for the change is already operating on Channel 10, had asked for the change to Channel 20, but could not complete that construction.  As the Bureau found that Channel 10 continues to meet all FCC technical requirements, it proposes that the change be adopted.
  • The Media Bureau affirmed its previous dismissal of a new Florida LPFM station construction permit application for the applicant’s failure to timely file a technical amendment to its application to resolve its mutual exclusivity (applications that cannot all be granted under the FCC’s technical rules) with other new LPFM construction permit applications filed during the 2023 LPFM filing window.  The Bureau dismissed the petition because the requested channel change to resolve the mutual exclusivity was not filed within the required timeframe for filing such amendments and the petitioner provided no grounds to show the Bureau’s dismissal was unjustified under the rules. 
  • The Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director issued an Order to Pay or to Show Cause against a Mississippi AM station proposing to revoke the station’s license unless, within 60 days, the station pays its delinquent regulatory fees and interest, administrative costs, and penalties, or shows that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred.  The station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $16,956.45 for fiscal years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, and 2025.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, in addition to the article on the effective date of the required new security obligations for broadcasters’ program chains, we took a look at August regulatory dates and deadlines affecting broadcasters, including the deadline for EEO annual public file reports for broadcasters in several states, the expected elimination of the 39% national TV ownership cap, a possible court decision as to whether the Media Bureau’s decision to extend LUC to coordinated party and joint fundraising committee political ads was correct, and the likely setting of the final amounts and payment deadlines for annual regulatory fees.

In early July, we wrote about the FCC’s decision to require that all broadcasters take measures to secure their EAS operations – and in the process secure their entire program chain – to make sure that malicious actors can’t hack into their systems and send false alerts.  The FCC today published in the Federal Register the order making those changes, which will require broadcasters to meet these security requirements in 60 days – by September 29.

By that date, the FCC requires that broadcasters have strong passwords for any part of their program chain that is connected to the internet, that they have the latest security updates installed in all hardware and software, and that they put all access to their program chain behind a firewall.  We wrote about the FCC’s decision and what is required back in early July and, now that the deadline for compliance is set, we reprint below much of that article to remind broadcasters of the details of what they need to do by the September 29 deadline:

At its regular monthly open meeting [in June], the FCC adopted an Order meant to enhance the security of the Emergency Alerting System.  Citing past hacks of the system that have resulted in false EAS alerts being transmitted to the public by broadcast stations, the FCC proposed in 2022 that broadcasters adopt a comprehensive cybersecurity plan with an annual filing requirement detailing how risks were managed and controlled (see our article here).  The Order adopted this week did not go that far, but it did adopt a mandatory three-point plan to secure not only EAS equipment at a station, but also to secure the entire program chain to ensure that bad actors can’t access station programming to insert false emergency information or other malicious content. 

While the first two requirements of the mandated plan should be relatively simple for broadcasters to quickly implement, the third may require some outside help – and the FCC has given broadcasters only a short time to implement this requirement.  The Order requires implementation within 60 days of the date that the Order is published in the Federal Register (see the just-released FCC Erratum correcting the Order to reiterate that the effective date will be 60 days after Federal Register publication).  As Federal Register publication should come soon, the Order requires quick action by broadcasters.  Let’s look at the new obligations.

Continue Reading New Security Obligations for Broadcasters Required by September 29 – Strong Passwords, Updated Software and Hardware, and Firewalls to Protect All Parts of the Program Chain

Although many, including Congress, take the last of their summer vacations in August, there are still many dates to which broadcasters should be paying attention this month.  One deadline that most commercial broadcasters should be anticipating is the FCC’s Order that will set the amount of their Annual Regulatory Fees.  Payment of those fees will be due sometime in September before the October 1 start of the federal government’s new fiscal year.  These announcements usually come in late August or in the first few days of September.  So be on the lookout for that announcement.

Noncommercial broadcasters who were anticipating a filing window for new noncommercial educational FM translators in the reserved band (88.1-91.9 MHz) in August, when it was originally scheduled to be held, should instead look later in the year, as the filing window has been moved from August to November (see our discussion here).  Applications can be drafted for the November window beginning August 3, but they cannot be filed until the window opens.

Continue Reading August 2026 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Annual EEO Public File Reports, Political Windows, and more

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