February 2011

The FCC’s auction of new VHF TV channels in New Jersey and Delaware (about which we have written many times including here) has resulted in only three qualified bidders.  Despite this lack of interest in these VHF channels, the FCC seems to be looking at VHF as a way to facilitate its announced plans for the clearing of significant portions of the television spectrum for wireless broadband use.  The Commission this week set the comment date – March 18, 2011 – on ways to overcome the issues that have been posed to TV stations that have remained in VHF channels after the digital transition.  In the same proceeding, the FCC also seeks comments on allowing TV stations to share the same 6 MHz channel, with both stations retaining their cable and satellite must-carry rights.  That same proceeding implies that we may well have seen the last new over-the-air television stations.  This crucial proceeding on the future of the television band requires careful attention by all parties who may be affected by the many proposals contained in this relatively compact Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

The first part of the FCC’s proposal (about which we previously wrote here), is to look at ways to get some of the television stations to give up their current channel to allow the FCC to use it for broadband, and having that station share another station’s channel to continue to provide its program service on what is the equivalent of a digital subchannel.  The proposal to encourage multiple TV stations to share the same 6 MHz channel raises many issues.  First, the FCC recognizes that the proposal may result in some television stations giving up their ability to broadcast in High Definition (one of the principal reasons for the initial transition to digital), but suggests that stations sharing the same channel could work out "dynamic arrangements" to allow sharing the spectrum flexibly, increasing the portion digital bandwidth allocated to one station when it has programming that would benefit from higher definition, while switching some of the bandwidth allocation to the other station at other times. 

While the Commission assumes that each station will continue to exist as an independent station even when sharing a channel with another station, many of its questions in this proceeding seem to signal uncertainty about this conclusion.  Issues on which the Commission seeks comment include:

  • What effect will channel sharing have on the deployment of HD programming and mobile television?  The Commission does not ask about 3-D television, which some broadcasters have begun to experiment with, and might be worth a comment if there are those who expect that to be part of the television future that could be affected by channel sharing arrangements.
  • In channel sharing, would each station be able to maintain a Standard Definition signal at all times?
  • The Commission assumes that each station sharing a single channel (and thus a single transmission facility) would retain a separate license, and be individually responsible for FCC-rule compliance (e.g. EAS, indecency, children’s television, political broadcasting, etc).  How would responsibility over the technical compliance be apportioned?
  • Should commercial and non-commercial stations be allowed to share the same channel?  Could commercial stations share channels that have, to this point, been reserved for noncommercial educational uses?
  • Will there be a loss in service to the public from such combinations?  Will there be television "white" and "gray" areas created, i.e. areas where there will be no over-the-air television service or only a single service?
  • Should cable and satellite service be included when evaluating questions of loss of service?
  • What impact should channel sharing have on other FCC rules, like the media ownership rules?

Perhaps the biggest issue with channel sharing is the cable and satellite carriage issue, which raised a number of issues for the Commission.  The issues, summarized below, also demonstrate the Commission’s tentativeness in its conclusion that two stations sharing the same channel are really independent stations.Continue Reading While Few Vie for New VHF TV Stations in NJ and Delaware, FCC Sets Comment Date on Improving VHF Digital Reception and TV Channel Sharing With Must Carry Rights As Ways to Help Clear TV Band for Broadband Users

When the FCC looks to adopt new rules or policies through rulemaking proceedings or through other significant cases, there are often companies, associations and individuals trying to influence the decision on these matters.  Such discussions with FCC decision makers are permitted, but the parties trying to influence the FCC’s decisions must file notices in the Docket of…

The FCC today upheld a $4000 fine issued to a broadcaster for broadcasting a telephone conversation without first getting the permission of the people on the other end of the line, denying reconsideration that the broadcaster had sought – arguing that the fine violated its First Amendment rights.  The telephone conversation that led to the fine was between a station employee and two airport officials, about a controversy concerning the local airport.  As summarized in our original article about that decision, the alleged violation arose from a call by the station employee to the airport officials to talk about the local controversy.  The employee allegedly identified himself as a station employee, and started to ask questions – without specifically stating that the call was being broadcast.  Even though the airport officials kept talking once they knew that the call was being recorded, the FCC still fined the station $4000, finding that the violation occurred once the officials said "hello" on the phone without having been told beforehand that the call was being broadcast.  The decision denying reconsideration is most notable for its long discussion of the First Amendment, which the station argued should override the FCC’s rules against broadcasting a telephone conversation without prior permission.

The broadcaster argued that, as in any case restricting speech rights, the FCC needed to show a compelling interest to restrict a broadcaster’s free speech rights.  Here, the broadcaster argued, no such compelling interest justifying the FCC’s blanket rule against broadcasting a conversation without getting prior approval had been shown.  The broadcaster made the point that this was not some case of a wake up call to a visiting celebrity, or a spoof call to a prominent person where the caller was not identified, but was instead a case of a reporter calling a news source for comment on a news controversy.  The subjects knew that they were talking to the station, and thus should have assumed that the substance of their statements might end up being broadcast.  The mere fact that their actual statements were being broadcast live should not, contended the broadcaster, be a sanctionable offense. Continue Reading Rule Against Broadcast of Telephone Conversation Without Prior Permission is Constitutional, Says FCC

The FCC is now accepting Form 175 applications for FM Auction 91 – an auction of 144 new FM channels across the country.  Applications are due between now and February 10.  We wrote about the auction here, and the list of channels to be auctioned is available here.   So, if you are interested in a new FM channel, act now!

While this auction is proceeding, in a recent case, the FCC addressed what to do with new FM channels that are not yet set for auction.  The FCC regularly receives petitions for rulemaking, seeking the addition of new FM channels.  Once allotted, these channels may sit on hold for a year or more before being listed for an auction like that now starting.  There are many such channels awaiting auction now, and not included in Auction 91.  During that period between auctions, owners of existing stations may find that these vacant allocations block upgrades or other changes that the owners may want to make to their existing stations.   Until recently, the existing licensee could suggest changes to the new allotments while they were sitting there waiting to be put out for auction – changes including restricting the transmitter site location for that new channel, changing the city of license for the allotment, downgrading it, or even deleting the channel altogether.  As set forth in the recent case, the policy has been to entertain these proposals, unless there was a showing that there was a party ready to file for the vacant allotment.  In the recent case, the FCC decided that no future proposals to change vacant allotments would be entertained, as the Commission believes that all channels have someone who is interested in the channel, or there will be an interested person when the next auction begins.  This policy will govern all future proceedings, with the limited exception that the FCC will entertain a change in frequency for a new allotment, as long as no other changes are made in that allotment (i.e. it stays at the same location and will continue to be able to operate with the same power).Continue Reading As Applications for New FM Auction Are About to be Filed – FCC Clarifies Rules on Changes to New Allotments