AM Radio

Subscribe to AM Radio via RSS
  • The FCC’s Order adopted in June that requires broadcasters to quickly adopt new security practices to protect their EAS systems
…

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

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
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau announced that the upcoming new noncommercial educational FM translator reserved band (88.1-91.9 MHz) filing window has
…

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