AM Radio

Subscribe to AM Radio

It seems like virtually every panel at every broadcast and media convention, at some point, ends up involving a discussion of Artificial Intelligence. Sessions on AI are filled to capacity, and sessions unrelated to the topic seem to have to mention AI to appear relevant.  Whenever there is a topic that so thoroughly takes over the conversation in the industry, we lawyers tend to consider the legal implications.  We’ve written several times about AI in political ads (see, for instance, our articles here, here and here).  We will, no doubt, write more about that subject (including addressing further action in the FCC’s proceeding on this subject about which we wrote here, on the Federal Election Commission’s pending action on its separate AI proceeding, consideration of which was again postponed at its meeting last week, and on bills pending in Congress to address AI in political advertising). 

We’ve also written about concerns when AI is used to impersonate celebrities and to create music that too closely resembles copyrighted recordings (see, for instance, our articles here and here).  When looking for new creative ways to entertain your audience, a broadcaster may be tempted to use AI’s ability to have a celebrity “say” something on your station by generating their voice with some form of AI.  As we noted in our previous articles, celebrities have protected interests in their identity in many states, and there has been much recent activity, caused by the advent of easily accessible generative AI that can impersonate anyone, to broaden the protections for the voice, image, and other recognizable traits of celebrities.  A federal NO FAKES Act has also been introduced to give individuals more rights in their voice and likeness.  So being too creative with the use of AI can clearly cause concerns.Continue Reading Using Artificial Intelligence in Developing Broadcast Programming – Watch for Legal Issues

On Friday, the FCC released a Public Notice confirming that the Form 395-B, reimposed by the FCC earlier this year (and the subject of several appeals), will not be due September 30, 2024, as we speculated earlier last week in our look ahead at September regulatory dates.  The Form 395-B is designed to collect information about the race, ethnicity, and gender of all broadcast employees in numerous categories of job responsibilities at broadcast stations (e.g., managers, sales employees, technical employees, “professionals,” clerical, etc.).    Last week’s Public Notice does not specifically say why the use of the form has been delayed, but it appears that the FCC has not determined that the reinstatement of the form must be approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, or because the public nature of the filings or the addition of the “non-binary” gender category needs approval under the PRA.  In any event, the Public Notice explains that the FCC will provide notice to broadcasters at some future date as to when the filing will be required. 

As we wrote in February when the FCC adopted its Fourth Report and Order reimposing the requirement for the filing of the form, it was to be submitted by September 30 each year, reporting on the make-up of station workforces for a consistently-used two week pay period from July, August, or September.  The use of the form has been on hold for more than 20 years because of constitutional concerns, as the FCC had used the form to impose penalties when a broadcaster’s workforce did not match the demographic profile of its community.  A court decision suggested that the FCC’s approach encouraged reverse discrimination – hiring based on racial or gender profiles rather than job qualifications.  Thus, the FCC put the use of the form on hold while it considered ways to collect demographic information about broadcast employees on an industry-wide basis, without tying that information to any specific stations. Continue Reading FCC Announces Form 395-B EEO Report Will Not Be Due September 30, 2024

It is time for our update on the coming month’s regulatory dates and deadlines to which broadcasters should be paying attention – and the deadline that probably is most important to all commercial broadcasters is not yet known.  That, of course, is the deadline for the payment of annual regulatory fees – which must be made before the federal government’s October 1 start of the new fiscal year.  We expect an announcement of the final decision on the amount of those fees for various broadcasters, and the deadlines for payment, in the next few days.  Keep on the alert for that announcement.

A second big date for all commercial broadcasters is September 6, when the lowest unit rate period for political candidate advertising – the “political window” – opens for the November 5 general election.  During this 60-day period prior to the general election, legally qualified candidates buying advertising on a broadcast station get the lowest rate for a spot that is then running on the station within the same class of advertising time and in the same daypart (see our article here on the basics of computing LUR).  Candidates also get the benefit of all volume discounts without having to buy in volume – i.e., the candidate gets the same rate for buying one spot as the station’s most favored advertiser gets for buying hundreds of spots of the same class.  For a deeper dive on how to prepare for the November general election, see our post, here, which also includes a link to our comprehensive Political Broadcasting Guide. Continue Reading September 2024 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – FCC Regulatory Fees, LUC Window for the General Election, Comment Deadlines on AI in Political Advertising and More

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from this past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • Some of the big news for broadcasters this week came not from the FCC, but from the Federal Trade Commission:
…

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from this past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC announced that oppositions are due August 27 in response to the National Association of Broadcasters’ petition for reconsideration
…

With a number of upcoming regulatory deadlines approaching, including regulatory fees that will likely be announced in the next two weeks with a payment deadline before October 1, we thought that this would be a good time to remind broadcasters of EAS filing obligation that they may have missed as there has not been the…

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from this 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 Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announced that October 4 is the deadline for EAS Participants to file
…

Last week, as we noted in our monthly look ahead at the regulatory dates of importance to broadcasters in August, the reinstatement of the rule prohibiting the duplication of programming on FM stations went into effect.  The FCC Order reinstating the rule is interesting both for its substance, and for the parties pushing for that reinstatement – principally representatives of the music industry.  As we note below, even though the rule is now back in effect, the NAB has asked for reconsideration of that action.

First, let’s look at what the rule provides.  The reinstated rule prohibits any commonly owned or operated (e.g., through a time brokerage agreement) commercial FM station from duplicating more than 25% of its weekly programming on another FM station if there is overlap of the 3.16 mv/m (70 dbu) contours of the two stations, and that area of overlap constitutes 50% of the 3.16 mv/m predicted coverage area of either of the overlapping stations.  Program duplication is not limited to simultaneous transmission of the same programming – the rule by its terms defines “duplication” to include the broadcast of the same programming any time within a 24-hour period.  Continue Reading FM Programming Nonduplication Rule Goes Back into Effect – A Win for the Music Industry While the NAB Objects

The FCC last week issued a Declaratory Ruling approving the acquisition by a company owned by a Canadian citizen of 100% of the ownership interest in a company that owns an AM radio stations in Seattle.  Until about a decade ago, a 25% limit in the parent company of an FCC broadcast licensee would have been the limit allowed by the FCC under Section imposed on foreign ownership of a US broadcast station by Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act.  Section 310(b) limits non-US citizens from holding more than 20% of a broadcast licensee, and foreign owners cannot hold more than 25% of a parent company “if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such license.” About a decade ago, as we wrote here, the FCC decided to permit, on a case by case basis, greater foreign ownership of US broadcast station owners. This has resulted in past cases where 100% foreign ownership of US broadcast stations have been permitted (see our articles here and here) and even many large US broadcast companies have been permitted to have foreign ownership in excess of the 25% allowed by Section 310(b)(4).  The processing of these applications is, of course, not as straightforward as the normal acquisition of a station by US citizens.

Any foreign owner seeking to acquire a substantial stake in a US broadcast station must be reviewed by various Executive Branch agencies to ensure that there are no perceived security risks raised by the proposed acquisition. The FCC has to do its own review as well.  The approval process for the first acquisition by a foreign owner often takes a full year or more (the deal approved last week was filed with the FCC almost exactly a year ago), so don’t expect to complete an acquisition by a foreign owner on the same timeline as that for the completion of a deal by US citizens.  But, once a foreign owner is approved by the FCC, as long as the ownership of that acquiring company stays the same, it can in most cases acquire additional US stations without going through this extended review process. Continue Reading FCC Allows 100% Ownership of US Radio Station by Canadian Owner – Once Again Demonstrating Openness to Foreign Investment in the US Broadcast Industry

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from this past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

…