August 2011

The FCC today froze all applications for TV channel 51 by both applicants for full-power and low power facilities.  Channel 51 is immediately adjacent to the parts of the television bands that were reclaimed for wireless uses during the DTV transition.  Wireless users, including CTIA and the Rural Cellular Association, have sought to restrict use of Channel 51 because of the potential for interference to the wireless users in these new wireless frequencies.  Today’s order not only freezes new applications for Channel 51 by both full-power and low power TV stations (including LPTV, TV translator and Class A TV stations), but it also freezes the processing of pending applications for the channel.  At the same time, the FCC has taken steps to encourage existing users of the channel to vacate it, giving low power applicants 60 days to amend pending applications to specify lower channels.

The freeze on applications is supposedly temporary, while the FCC considers a proposal for a rulemaking to permanently clear Channel 51 of TV users to eliminate the alleged interference to wireless users.  But, given the action here, and the FCC’s other actions to clear portions of the TV spectrum for wireless users, it certainly looks like the FCC is predisposed to adopting the proposal of the wireless users to clear this channel.  The freeze affects proposals not only for new channels on this band, but also applications for increases in the facilities of stations already in the band so as to preserve the "status quo."  The FCC will consider waivers of the freeze, but only to replace existing facilities with new ones where the existing facilities need to be replaced or changed due damage by storm, zoning proceedings, or "unforeseen events."  Any new facilities must keep the station within its current coverage area.  No waivers of this requirement will be issued to low power stations – while full-power stations may be able to exceed their current contours only through a waiver request that demonstrates that some expansion is necessary to preserve existing coverage or the quality of service to the public.Continue Reading FCC Freezes TV and LPTV Applications for Channel 51 – Encourages Users to Vacate the Channel

The debate over repurposing some of the television spectrum for wireless broadband have been raging over the normally quiet Washington summer, as issues as diverse as the budget negotiations, the tenth anniversary of 9-11 and international treaties all play their part in the discussions.  Whatever changes are made could have a profound impact on TV broadcasters nationwide, not just those in the congested metropolitan markets where everyone acknowledges that any spectrum crunch that may exist would be most acute.  This week, Congressman John Dingell, long one of the most influential Congressmen on telecommunications issues, complained that the FCC was deliberately withholding details of its plans for spectrum allocation – plans that the National Association of Broadcasters have challenged as unworkable as they would doom over-the-air television in many markets, especially those near the Canadian border.  With all the issues swirling around the spectrum reallocation debate, the realistic timing of any reallocation of the spectrum and the real impact on the free over-the-air television broadcast industry are becoming major issues being considered in Washington.

The FCC has been pursuing the idea of repurposing some of the television spectrum for wireless broadband use since well before the Broadband Report was issued last year.  As we summarized in our review of the Broadband Report, the FCC suggested that as much as 120 MHz of television spectrum could be reallocated from TV to wireless broadband uses.  The FCC and the consumer electronics and wireless industries have contended that there is a looming spectrum crunch, particularly in major markets, as smart phones, tablets and other connected devices become a bigger part of the lives of many consumers in serving not only their entertainment needs, but also providing information and business services.  The FCC’s Broadband Report thought that as much as 500 MHz of spectrum would eventually be needed, and that 120 MHz could come from the television spectrum, which proponents feel has been underutilized by broadcasters since the digital television transition in 2009.  Proponents of the reallocation contend most consumers get their TV service not over the air, but from cable or satellite providers, so the need for spectrum dedicated to broadcast television is far less than it was 70 years ago when the television service was first popularized.  Broadcasters, of course disagree with that assessment, contending that the digital transition is still very new, and that uses of the digital spectrum – including a mobile DTV service and multicast channels – are just developing.  Moreover, TV broadcasters have argued that their digital offerings, when combined with Internet service, are providing an option to many to "cut the cord" from pay TV options, leading to more over-the-air viewing.  In recent weeks, as detailed below, the National Association of Broadcasters has also been contending that the proposed reallocation would irreparably damage the over-the-air television industry, especially in markets in the Northeast and near the Canadian border where, in some markets, the reallocation would be impossible without ending most or all over-the-air television service.  The radically different pictures painted by the participants in this debate have led to some of the recent charges that the FCC is being less than forthcoming about the manner in which this transition would occur and the impact that it would have on broadcast TV. Continue Reading The Debate Continues Over Using TV Spectrum for Wireless Broadband – Incentive Auctions, International Considerations, Deficit Reduction, and Public Safety All Play a Role

Microwave frequencies used by television stations for their TV Pick-Ups for the transport of programming, and by cable systems for their CARS relays, were the subject of an FCC order last week looking to repurpose these frequencies to provide backhaul for wireless broadband and other telecommunications uses.  The Commission’s order sets out to protect existing users, but to allow these…

Advertising from Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC was rejected by Des Moines television station WOI-TV, based on its belief that these commercials would be confusing to Iowa voters.  Colbert, the host of Comedy Central’s the Colbert Report, has formed his own Political Action Committee to run ads during the upcoming Presidential election.  The first ads ran in Iowa this past week – making fun of the amount of third party money that was being spent on political advertising in Iowa and urging voters to vote for "Rick Parry", with an "a" rather than "Rick Perry."   WOI-TV, rejected them, while the spots ran on all other stations in Iowa’s capitol city.  Are there legal issues with this station deciding not to run these ads?

Not at all.  The FCC has said many times that broadcast stations are not "common carriers," meaning that they don’t have to run all advertising time that advertisers want to run on their stations.  Instead, stations pick and choose among the ads that are brought their way, and stations have an affirmative duty to reject ads that they feel are not in the public interest.  So, while many may question whether these Colbert ads were outside of the norms applied to advertising in the public interest (as Colbert himself argued that the station runs many other ads as likely to confuse the public on many issues), the station has the absolute, non-delegable duty to decide on its own what is and what is not in the public interest – with the very narrow exception of candidate ads.Continue Reading Colbert Super PAC Ad Rejected by Iowa TV Station – Can They Do That?

US broadcasters often complain about FCC regulations on programming, but they don’t realize how easy they have it compared to much of the rest of the world.  I recently spent several days in one of the former Soviet Republics discussing broadcast regulation with broadcaster representatives, employees of the country’s regulatory agency, and members of citizen advocacy groups.  What seemed most surprising to those in this developing capitalist country was the fact that, in the US, broadcasters can change formats at will to react to marketplace conditions.  This is not a freedom enjoyed in much of the rest of the world – even in Western Europe or in Canada.  We’ve written many times (see, for instance our article here) that the FCC does not consider format issues – even where there are citizens complaints about a proposed change in format or a sale of a station that will probably lead to such a change.  In fact, just last Friday, the FCC again reached that same conclusion, finding that it will not prevent a sale because the sale will result in a format change.  The FCC has determined that format choices are a business decision protected by the First Amendment, so broadcasters are free to change at will, without the government interfering in these programming decisions.

In the country that I visited, their regulatory agency issues station licenses with strict format restrictions.  The agency even regulates networks (both broadcast and cable) to make sure that their programming meets the needs of the communities that they are intended to serve and that the programmers comply with various regulatory and structural requirements.  Unlike in the US, where there may be penalties when a company violates the limited program restrictions that are in place (e.g. political broadcasting, children’s television obligations, indecency rules), in many countries, even the decision as to what kind of entertainment programming to offer is subject to government review.  This country is certainly not unique in regulating broadcasting in that way.  In looking at the website of Ofcom, the regulatory authority for the United Kingdom, you can see how closely formats are regulated.  One recent request for public comment (which could not be approved on an expedited pro forma basis as it was deemed to raise significant questions requiring public input before a decision could be made), proposed the following change in the format of a radio station:

Current Character of Service

A RHYTHMIC-BASED MUSIC AND INFORMATION STATION PRIMARILY FOR LISTENERS OF AFRICAN OR AFRO-CARIBBEAN ORIGIN, BUT WITH CROSS-OVER APPEAL TO YOUNG WHITE FANS OF URBAN CONTEMPORARY BLACK MUSIC AND AT LEAST 26 HOURS A WEEK OF IDENTIFIABLE SPECIALIST MUSIC PROGRAMMES (TO INCLUDE REGGAE, RnB AND HIP HOP RHYTHMIC-BASED (e.g. DANCE, CLUB etc).

Proposed Character of Service

A RHYTHMIC-BASED MUSIC-LED SERVICE FOR 15-29 YEAR-OLDS SUPPLEMENTED WITH NEWS, INFORMATION AND ENTERTAINMENT. THE SERVICE SHOULD HAVE PARTICULAR APPEAL FOR LISTENERS IN THEIR 20s AND AT LEAST 12 HOURS A WEEK OF IDENTIFIABLE SPECIALIST MUSIC PROGRAMMES.

Can you imagine a requirement that the FCC look at each proposal of a radio station to make programming changes along the lines set out above?  Some US stations make these kind of changes routinely, trying to fine tune their programming to provide the best service that they can to the public.  Stations in the US do the research to determine what programming they will broadcast, and how to insure that programming will reach the biggest and best audience – and the station’s decisions are not subject to second guessing by the government.  In some of these other countries, the government does the research to determine what format it thinks is best for the public.  While we had more regulation in the past – these systems are obviously far different from what we do in regulating formats today.Continue Reading FCC Once Again Declines to Intervene In Format Dispute – US Broadcasters Have it Easy Compared to Much of the World

Noncommercial broadcasters get no breaks when dealing with proposed FCC fines, said the Commission’s Media Bureau in two cases released this week.  While many noncommercial broadcasters may yearn for a day when they were treated leniently if violations were discovered – getting off with perhaps an admonishment letter – those days are over, as they have been for some time. In one case released this week, the FCC specifically states that noncommercial broadcasters are no different than commercial ones when dealing with fines (or "forfeitures" as they are called by the FCC).  If the noncommercial broadcaster violates a rule, they will be treated just like a commercial broadcaster, and have to pay the same fine as would the commercial broadcaster.  

Noncommercial broadcasters have often argued that they cannot afford to pay big fines, as their budgets are limited.  Even when noncommercial stations are owned by colleges or local governments, they have limited budgets, and fines don’t figure into them.  But, in two recent cases, the FCC has rejected arguments for the reduction of proposed fines based on financial hardship, in both cases finding that the budget of the station was not important – it is the total budget of the licensee that is important in assessing if a fine is too much (see our post about how the FCC determines if a fine should be reduced because its payment would create a financial hardship on a station).  In the case cited above, the FCC said that it was the local government agency (a metropolitan school district) that was the licensee, and its financial resources should have been assessed in determining whether the proposed fine was too great.  In a second case, it was a state university that owned the station, and the FCC said that it would look to the overall finances of the university in determining if the fine was too high – not the amount budgeted for the station.  In neither case had the licensee put forward a financial showing for the full licensee organization, so the FCC rejected the requests for reductions of the fines based on financial hardship.Continue Reading FCC Makes Clear Noncommercial Broadcasters Get No Breaks on FCC Fines, Nor on Financial Hardship Showings

Another EEO audit was announced by the FCC today – hitting about 100 radio stations this time around. The Commission has pledged to audit 5% of all broadcast stations and cable systems each year to assure their compliance with the Commission’s EEO rules – requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and supplemental efforts to educate their communities…

The failure to follow FCC filing rules when a station finished construction of new facilities under a construction permit will apparently cost a radio station $7000 according to a recent Notice of Apparent Liability released by the Commission’s Media Bureau.  Before a broadcast station can make most changes to its technical facilities, it must apply to the FCC for approval, which the FCC grants by way of a construction permit.  In most cases, the broadcaster has 3 years to construct the proposed facilities.  Once construction is complete, the broadcaster must notify the FCC of that fact by filing an application for a license on FCC Form 302.  That form gives details of the construction, so that the FCC can tell that the station was built in the manner authorized by the construction permit, and in accordance with any conditions placed on construction in the permit.  In this case, the broadcaster built the new facilities that it proposed within the 3 year period, but forgot to file the Form 302 – and only did so 3 years after the end of the construction period.  Under this Notice, the late filing, and the failure to ask for special temporary authority ("STA") to operate the station after the failure to file was discovered, may cost the station $7000.

In the past, the FCC had allowed some stations to file their license application late, if construction had occurred in a timely fashion, and where the licensee provided proof of the timely construction.  In this decision, the FCC found that these cases were situations where the late filing was for an insignificant period of time – a few days or weeks at the most, not for the years that went by in the case here.  The late filing, and the fact that, as the construction permit had expired and no license had been granted, the station was deemed to have been operating without authority at the new site, warranted the $7000 fine in the FCC’s opinion.  The case not only serves as a reminder to those with construction permits to file their license applications on time after they complete construction, but also shows that while the FCC may show some flexibility in enforcing its procedural rules, it will not allow licensees to ignore them for long periods.  So be careful to meet the requirements of the rules, or look for big fines from the Commission. Continue Reading $7000 Fine for Radio Operator Who Builds Construction Permit But Forgets to File a License Application