AM Radio

Subscribe to AM Radio via RSS

It’s that time of the year when we need to dust off the crystal ball and make predictions about the legal issues that will impact the business of broadcasters in 2016.  While we try to look ahead to identify the issues that are on the agenda of the FCC and other government agencies, there are always surprises as the regulators come up with issues that we did not anticipate. With this being an election year, issues may arise as regulators look to make a political point, or as Commissioners look to establish a legacy before the end of their terms in office.  And you can count on there being issues that arise that were unanticipated at the beginning of the year.

But, we’ll nevertheless give it a try – trying to guess the issues that we will likely be covering this year.  We’ll start today with issues likely to be considered by the FCC, and we’ll write later about issues that may arise on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in the maze of government agencies and courts who deal with broadcast issues.  In addition, watch these pages for our calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters in the next few days.

So here are some issues that are on the table at the FCC.  While the TV incentive auction may well suck up much of the attention, especially in the first half of the year, there are many other issues to consider.  We’ll start below with issues affecting all stations, and then move on to TV and radio issues in separate sections below. 
Continue Reading What Washington Has in Store for Broadcasters in 2016 – Looking at the Legal Issues that the FCC Will Be Considering in the New Year

Last week, we noted that an order acting on the FCC’s proposal to adopt a requirement for an online public file for radio, cable and satellite had been prepared and was circulating among the FCC commissioners for their review.  Yesterday, in a post on the FCC’s blog, the FCC Chairman confirmed that the decision…

The FCC appears poised to decide what to do with its proposals for an online public inspection file for radio stations, and for cable and satellite TV systems. The FCC’s list of “Items on Circulation” (orders that have been written and are being considered for approval by the FCC Commissioners) indicates that the decision…

While January starts off with some regulatory deadlines that apply to all broadcasters – Quarterly Issues Programs lists must be placed in a station’s public file by the 10th of January – there are many other dates that come due this month, dates to which broadcasters need to pay careful attention. For TV stations, they need to file at the FCC by January 11 (as the 10th is a Sunday) Children’s Television Reports, listing all of the programming that they broadcast in the previous quarter addressing the educational and informational needs of children. Records showing a TV station’s compliance with the commercial limits in children’s television should also be placed in the station’s public file.  As we have written, missing Quarterly Issues Programs lists (see our articles here and here) and Children’s Television Reports (and even late Children’s Television Reports) provided the basis for most of the fines during the last renewal cycle (see, for instance, our article here) – even for missing reports from early in the renewal cycle and, for the Children’s Reports, even where the reports were filed (repeatedly) only a few days late. So it is important to meet the obligations imposed by these regular filing deadlines.

Starting on the first day of this new year, there are a host of other obligations and deadlines that arise. On January 1, TV stations need to be captioning clips of video programming that they make available on their websites or in their mobile apps, if those clips came from programming that was captioned when shown on TV. For more on that obligation, see our article on the new online captioning requirements here.
Continue Reading January Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues Programs Lists and Children’s Television Reports, Incentive Auction, FM Translators for AM Stations, Webcasting Fees, LUR Windows and More

The FCC’s Media Bureau gave a long-awaited Christmas present to many of the country’s AM stations, releasing a Public Notice announcing the filing dates for the translator modification application filing windows for AM stations.  These are the windows authorized by the Commission as part of its AM Revitalization proceeding (see our article here for more about the FCC decision to open these windows).  In these windows, the FCC will allow an AM licensee to buy or arrange to program an FM translator and move it up to 250 miles to a location from which it can be used to rebroadcast an AM station.  In making such a site move, the applicant can also change the translator’s channel to specify operations on any vacant frequency in the area where the AM station wants to operate that translator that will not cause interference to existing broadcasters.  However, applications will only be accepted to move translators or translator construction permits in the commercial part of the FM band, 92.1 MHz (Channel 221) and above.

Initially, there will be two windows.  The first window will open January 29, 2016 and close at 11:59 pm (EDT) on July 28, 2016.  This window can be used by Class C and Class D AM stations to seek to move an FM translator for use by those stations.

The second window will open on July 29, 2016 and close at 5:59 pm (EDT) on October 31, 2016.  Any AM station can file an application during that window. 
Continue Reading Window to Open January 29 for Applications to Move FM Translators Up to 250 Miles to Rebroadcast AM Stations

In Friday’s Federal Register, the FCC published a summary of the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking looking to revise its policies regarding the ownership of broadcast stations by non-US citizens setting the date for comments on its proposal of December 21, with Reply Comments being due by January 20.  The FCC two years ago issued a Declaratory Ruling confirming that it would allow broadcasters to have foreign ownership (in a licensee’s parent company) of greater than 25%, overturning what was widely viewed as the Commission’s prior reluctance to approve that degree of foreign ownership of broadcast stations (see our article here for a summary of the FCC’s 2013 action).  But that decision left many unanswered questions, as the Commission decided to proceed on a case-by-case basis in reviewing any requests for approval under the new rules.  When it took almost two years for Pandora to get approval for its acquisition of a broadcast station, almost a year in processing a request under the 2013 ruling (see our article here on the filing of the Pandora petition), when Pandora did not even think that it exceeded the 25% foreign-ownership threshold but it could not prove its compliance based on the FCC’s 40 year old rules setting out the procedures used to assess the foreign ownership of broadcast stations, it was clear that some changes had to be made.  So, in approving the Pandora deal in May, the FCC said that it would conduct a further review of its rules regarding foreign ownership, a commitment that it moves to fulfill by the issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The NPRM suggests that the FCC will use for broadcasting, with some modifications, the procedures that it uses in assessing foreign ownership of non-broadcast FCC licensees.  While there are many details and nuances in its proposals, the FCC will still need a Petition for Declaratory Ruling to approve foreign ownership above 25% of a parent company of a broadcast licensee (foreign ownership of the licensee itself is flatly prohibited if it exceeds 20%). But it now proposes to adopt the non-broadcast presumptions that, when the FCC approves a foreign owner of more than 5% of a corporation, that approved owner can go up to 49% ownership without further FCC approval.  Similarly, if a foreign owner is approved in a control position, that owner would be able go to 100% without further approval.  But, on a practical level, perhaps more important was the FCC proposals about the mechanics of tracking foreign ownership.
Continue Reading FCC Sets Comment Dates on Proposal to Relax Restrictions on Foreign Ownership in Companies Holding US Broadcast Station Licenses – What Is the FCC Proposing?

November is another of those months with no regular filing obligations – no EEO public file and Mid-Term reports, no noncommercial ownership reports, and no quarterly issues programs lists or children’s television reports. EEO public file reports and noncommercial station ownership reports, being tied to renewal dates, will be back in December. See our Broadcaster’s Calendar, here, for information about the states where stations have such obligations. For all commercial radio and TV stations, November also means that they should be completing their Biennial Ownership Reports, which are due on December 2 (extended from the November 1 due date by FCC action noted, see our article here). Those reports submit a snapshot of broadcast station ownership as of October 1, so they can be filed at any time in November.

The end of November also brings the effective date of the requirement that TV stations convert the text of their emergency alerts run in entertainment programs (like weather alerts) into speech, with that audio to be broadcast on the station’s SAP channel. See our articles here and here on that requirement.
Continue Reading November Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Incentive Auction and Biennial Ownership Report Preparation, Reg Fee Comments, Music Issues, Text to Speech Emergency Information and More

The FCC requires each full-power broadcast station, commercial and noncommercial, to maintain a public inspection file.  Even though this is a longstanding FCC requirement, there are always questions about what goes into the file, and how long those materials must be retained.  The week before last, I conducted a webinar for about 20 state broadcast associations on the FCC’s public file requirements for broadcast stations.  The slides from that presentation, outlining the requirements for the file, and the required retention period for many of the documents that make up that file, are available here.

While many broadcasters wonder if the public file is really worth the time that it takes to maintain given the nonexistent traffic to view that file at most stations, the FCC has continued to insist on its importance – fining or otherwise sanctioning stations for missing or late filed documents.  See, for instance, this case admonishing a TV station for failing to get all of its documents into its online public file in a timely fashion (an admonishment is the equivalent of putting a demerit in the station’s permanent record that could be considered as a prior violation in assessing fines if the FCC finds the station in violation for some other offence).  Particularly at license renewal time, a complete public file can be crucial, as missing documents lead to big fines (see, for instance, our articles here and here), and failure to disclose those missing documents can lead to even more harsh penalties (see our article here).  So maintaining an accurate and complete public file is important.  Quarterly issues programs lists are often the most overlooked requirement.
Continue Reading The Care and Feeding of the Broadcast Public Inspection File – Requirements and Retention Periods, A Presentation on the Issues

This week, many radio stations received a letter from SESAC, asking the stations to renew their last SESAC agreement for three years at a rate 5% lower than the rate at which they are currently paying. Sounds like a deal? But is there a catch? The SESAC letter makes clear that, by renewing the current agreement and accepting the discount, the station is agreeing that it will not be a part of any attempt by the Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”) to negotiate a rate with SESAC. The SESAC letter has drawn a strong response from the RMLC in a letter dated today, signed by Ed Christian from Saga Communications, the Chairman of RMLC, suggesting that stations not sign the SESAC renewal requests. What is this all about?

As we wrote several months ago, SESAC and the RMLC recently settled antitrust litigation where the RMLC argued that SESAC violated the antitrust laws by charging monopoly pricing for the multiple musical compositions that it bundled together for licensing purposes, and making it virtually impossible for stations to avoid paying these royalties as SESAC did not reveal its entire catalog, and licensed music that was almost impossible to avoid playing (like the jingles in some McDonalds commercials). SESAC agreed to settle the litigation – agreeing to negotiate industry-wide deals with the RMLC, and, if such deals could not be reached through voluntary negotiations, to have its rates set by an arbitration panel. SESAC has never before had its rates subject to oversight as, unlike ASCAP and BMI, SESAC is a for-profit company and is not subject to an antitrust consent decree that includes rate review by a US District Court. Many thought that the RMLC agreement with SESAC would result in a moderation of the SESAC rates. Many broadcasters considered SESAC rates to be too high relative to the fees paid for the much larger ASCAP and BMI catalogs given the limited catalog of music that SESAC licenses. So if SESAC agreed to negotiate rates with the RMLC, why is it now writing letters suggesting that stations not participate in the RMLC negotiations?
Continue Reading Dueling Letters about SESAC Radio Station Royalties – What’s A Station to Do?

On Friday, the FCC finally took action in its long-awaited AM revitalization rulemaking proceeding.  Friday’s order came in three parts – one adopting certain changes to FCC technical FCC rules and also adopting procedures for AM stations to acquire FM translators, a second asking for comment on a series of additional proposals looking to further change certain AM rules, and a final section a more preliminary inquiry looking at longer term policy changes to the AM rules.  While not providing everything some AM proponents may have wished for, the order does promise some immediate help for AM stations – including steps to, in the short-term, bring FM translators to many of the AM stations that feel these translators are necessary for their continued survival.  Today, we’ll look at that aspect of the order – the proposals to make available FM translators to help AM stations.

As we have written (see our articles here and here), there was a major controversy at the FCC about whether or not to open a window, restricted to AM licensees, letting them file for new FM translators, or to instead provide a process where AM stations would need to buy existing translators to provide FM service for their stations.  In Friday’s order, the FCC promised both.  Initially, in 2016, it will open a two-part window during which it will waive its minor change rules so as to allow AM licensees to buy an FM translator authorization, and “move” that translator up to 250 miles from its present location, to its AM market to operate on any available FM channel in that market.  Later in 2017, it will open a more traditional window for any AM that was not able to acquire a translator in 2016 where that AM will be able to file an application for a new FM translator. There are many details associated with each of these windows.
Continue Reading FCC Adopts AM Revitalization Order – Part 1 – The Upcoming Windows for AM Stations to Acquire FM Translators