Internet Radio

Subscribe to Internet Radio via RSS

While most of the country is currently frozen, February promises to heat up with several regulatory dates and deadlines broadcasters need to be aware of.  But the possibility of another federal government shutdown looms.  To end the longest shutdown in history last November, Congress gave themselves until January 31 to pass a budget bill covering the…

Today, we would normally publish our look back at the prior week’s regulatory activity of importance to broadcasters but, as we noted last week, we are taking this week off and will publish a summary of the regulatory activity during the two week holiday period next Sunday.  But, as the start of a new month is upon us, we instead offer our regular look ahead at regulatory dates and deadlines for January.   

With each New Year, there are a host of new regulatory deadlines to keep broadcasters busy.  In January, this includes some recurring FCC deadlines like Quarterly Issues/Programs lists for all full power broadcasters, and a host of other quarterly obligations that are not as widely applicable.  For TV broadcasters, the month brings obligations including the annual children’s television reports on educational and informational programming and a public file certification on commercial limits, as well as the extension to stations in 10 additional markets of the audio description requirements. 

In addition to comments in rulemaking proceedings described below, January brings some new obligations.  For commercial broadcasters streaming audio programming on the Internet, there are new SoundExchange royalties that cover performances made on and after January 1, and a requirement for a higher minimum fee due at the end of the month.  There is also a freeze that will be imposed on applications for major changes by existing LPTV stations and TV translators related to a window that will open in March, the first window in well over a decade for the filing of applications for new LPTV stations. 

Let’s look at some of the specific dates and deadlines for broadcasters in January, starting with the routine deadlines that come up every January, and then moving to some of new obligations for 2026.  After that we provide January deadlines for comments in rulemaking proceedings (including reply comments on proposed changes to the FCC’s ownership rules and initial comments on proposals to speed the ATSC 3.0 conversion), a look at lowest unit rate windows that open in January for 2026 elections, and finally a few deadlines in early February.Continue Reading January 2026 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Children’s Television Programming Reporting, New Webcasting Royalties, Expansion of Audio Description Requirements, Comment Deadlines, Political Windows, and More

  • President Trump this week issued an Executive Order instructing various government agencies to take steps to move marijuana from Schedule
…

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the American Music Fairness Act bill which proposes to adopt a new music royalty to be paid by over-the-air radio stations.  The royalty would be payable to SoundExchange for the public performance of sound recordings.  This means that the money collected would be paid to performing artists and record labels for the use of their recording of a song.  This new royalty would be in addition to the royalties paid by radio stations to composers and publishing companies through ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR, which are paid for the performance of the musical composition – the words and music to a song. This legislation is very similar to a bill introduced in the last Congress (see our article here), and is another in a string of similar bills proposing to establish a broadcast performance royalty that have been introduced in Congress over the last decade.  See, for instance, our articles here, here, here and here on previous attempts to impose such a royalty.

This past week’s hearing featured three witnesses.  A broadcast station owner from eastern North Carolina, Henry Hinton, spoke on behalf of broadcasters warning of the impact that such a royalty would have on the economics of broadcasting and the public service that broadcast radio stations provide.  His written statement is here, and a podcast where he further explained his testimony is here.  Michael Huppe, the CEO of SoundExchange, testified in support of the royalty arguing, among other things, that the US was an outlier in not imposing this royalty on broadcasters, and that the broadcast industry should not be able to make its tens of billions of dollars off of artist’s work without compensating them (that revenue figure must have been meant as a historical one, as even he admitted that total revenue for the radio industry was only $14 billion – and some of that comes from talk radio that presumably would not be affected by this royalty).  His statement is here.  Also testifying was Gene Simmons, the frontman of the legendary band Kiss, who argued that this legislation was needed to compensate the next generation of artists so that they get paid for radio play.  His statement is here.  The hearing was contentious at times as most of the committee members in attendance were supporters of the royalty (though at least 25 Senators and close to a majority of the House have signed on to an NAB resolution opposing the royalty).  The entire hearing can be viewed on the Committee’s webpage here.Continue Reading Congressional Hearing on American Music Fairness Act Proposing New Music Royalty on Radio Stations – What is Being Considered

  • The NAB and SoundExchange filed with the Copyright Royalty Board a proposed settlement of the pending litigation over the 2026-2030
…

As we have noted, a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to set the rates to be paid to SoundExchange for the public performance of music by a non-interactive commercial webcasting service for 2026-2030 started last year, and is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2025.  SoundExchange and one of the major webcasting parties remaining in the case, the NAB, this week filed with the Copyright Royalty Board a proposed settlement of the current litigation over the royalty rates to be paid to performers and copyright holders (usually the record companies).  These are the royalties that commercial broadcasters pay to SoundExchange for streaming music online, including through mobile apps and to smart speakers.  The current rate is $.0025 per Performance (a performance is every time a song is heard by one listener – so, for example, if a station has 10 listeners during an hour and they each hear 10 songs, that is 100 Performances).  And, under the settlement, the rates will be going up, effective January 1, 2026.

The rates proposed in the settlement are as follows:

2026: $0.0028 per Performance;

2027: $0.0029 per Performance;

2028: $0.0030 per Performance;

2029: $0.0031 per Performance; and

2030: $0.0032 per Performance

The CRB case is currently set to go to trial on April 28, a week’s extension having just been granted, perhaps because of this week’s resignation of the Chief Judge of the CRB and the appointment of an interim judge (that announcement is on the CRB’s homepage).  The NAB had been advocating for substantially lower rates for broadcast simulcasts given their total lack of interactivity.  The argument is that simulcast streams, which simply rebroadcast the programming of a commercial broadcast station and are not influenced by “likes” or a user’s favorite songs or artists, should be charged less than those offered by services that allow some degree of user customization, tailoring the stream provided to the user based on their preferences, while still remaining a noninteractive service (see our articles here and here on the difference between noninteractive streams that pay SoundExchange at the rates set by the CRB and those offered by interactive services that must negotiate agreements with the record companies to play their songs).  See our article here on the Court decision upholding the 2021-2025 royalties which rejected a similar argument by the NAB. By settling, it appears that the NAB opted for certainty in establishing rates modestly higher in each of the next five years rather than incurring the substantial cost of litigating over what the rates should be and the uncertainty that comes with any litigation – as SoundExchange was asking for rates substantially higher than those set out in the settlement. Continue Reading Settlement Between NAB and SoundExchange on Webcasting Royalty Rates for 2026-2030 – Rates are Going Up for Broadcast Simulcasts

  • In an effort to exert more control over independent federal agencies, including the FCC, President Trump signed an Executive Order
…

The Copyright Royalty Board this week published notice in the Federal Register that SoundExchange is auditing two broadcast companies who are streaming their signals online to assess compliance with the statutory music licenses provided by Sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act for the public performance of sound recordings and ephemeral copies made in the digital transmission process by commercial webcasters. A notice was published last month indicating an audit of five other broadcast companies.  Notices of audits are annual events.  But, as the number of broadcasters selected for audits this year is higher than in past years, we thought that we should republish some of the observations that we have made in the past about these audits. 

SoundExchange may conduct an audit of any licensee operating under the statutory licenses for which it collects royalties.  Such audits cover the prior three calendar years in order to verify that the correct royalty payments have been made (the notice issued this week audits the named broadcasters for 2022-2024, while the audits announced last month were filed in late 2024 and are for the years 2021-2023). The decision to audit a company is not necessarily any indication that SoundExchange considers something amiss with that company’s royalty payments – instead SoundExchange audits a cross-section of services each year (see our past articles about audits covering the spectrum of digital music companies who have been subject to these audits – here, here, here, here and here).  Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Announces SoundExchange Audits of Broadcast Companies Streaming Their Signals – How Do These Audits Work?

In the United States, performing rights in musical compositions (or “musical works” as the Copyright Act refers to them – the words and music of a song) are generally licensed by a “performing rights organization” or a “PRO.”  The U.S., unlike most countries where there is a single organization that collects these royalites, has multiple such organizations.  The recent doubling in the number of PROs triggered the Copyright Office to initiate a Notice of Inquiry last week requesting public comment on issues related to these organizations.  What are the issues that led to this inquiry? 

As set out in the Notice, in the U.S., performance rights in musical compositions have for over 80 years been licensed by three PROs – ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.  Yet, since 2013, three new PROs have begun (GMR, PRO Music, and AllTrack).  These new PROs are not all equal. GMR has compiled a roster of songwriters who wrote many well-known songs in many different musical genres, and it has aggressively pursued royalties for the music in their repertoire – see, for instance, our articles here and here on their aggressive efforts to compel the radio industry to pay royalties.  PRO Music, while it has sought to receive licenses from various businesses, is a newer organization with music that appears to be concentrated in certain musical genres.  AllTracks is the newest of the PROs and, at this time, their licensing strategy remains to be seen. 

With at least six PROs representing composers of musical works in existence, Congress has received complaints that businesses using music have been confused by demands for royalty payments from these new organizations, accompanied by threats of lawsuits if royalties are not paid.  The Notice of Inquiry does not even note that the landscape is even more complicated, as there are additional PROs claiming rights in the underlying compositions in spoken word recordings – see our article here – and, from time to time, PROs arise that purportedly represent certain foreign-language recordings.  There is, no doubt, confusion among those who publicly perform music and need to be licensed to play that music about who they have to pay, and what these users are getting when they pay their royalties. Continue Reading Copyright Office Commences an Inquiry into the Proliferation of Performing Rights Organizations – Looking at the Complexity of Licensing Musical Works in the United States

  • Payola on broadcast stations suddenly was in the news this past week.  Early in the week, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
…