AM Radio

Subscribe to AM Radio via RSS

SESAC is the one major performing rights organization whose rates have not, until now, been subject to judicial review as part of an antitrust consent decree.  Perhaps because of that fact, broadcast stations have often complained about the rates they charge for the music that they license, as there is currently no cap on what SESAC can charge, and there is no requirement that SESAC treat all similar licensees in the same way.  In fact, because of this dissatisfaction, both the TV and Radio Music License Committees have filed antitrust suits against SESAC seeking relief from the rates they charge.  In a settlement announced this past week, the Television Music Licensing Committee has entered into a settlement by which SESAC will pay the TVMLC $58.5 million and agree that, over the next 20 years, SESAC will negotiate license agreements with TVMLC.  Under the agreement, if rates can’t be reached as a result of negotiations, SESAC and the TVMLC would submit to an arbitration process to arrive at the appropriate rates.  The full settlement can be found on the TVMLC website, here. 

Under the terms of the settlement, commercial TV stations (except for those owned by Univision, which appear to have opted out of the class of stations covered by the TVMLC settlement) will have their SESAC obligations covered for the rest of this year and next, including website SESAC music use and use in digital multichannel programming.  In 2015, TVMLC will negotiate with SESAC over rates for the period from 2016-2019.  If no rates are agreed to by the parties, an arbitration panel will set the rates.  The same process will continue for 4 year periods through 2035, as long as ASCAP and BMI are also subject to either rate court or arbitration review of the rates charged by those organizations.  While the Department of Justice is reviewing the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees that require rate court review of royalty rates charged by these groups (see our article here), it appears that they are not asking for an end to all rate review.  Instead, they are asking that the review be done by an arbitration panel, not the US District Court that currently reviews such rates.  So it would appear likely that the “out” in the deal would not give SESAC an escape from this agreement to be bound by arbitration any time soon.
Continue Reading TV Music Licensing Committee Settles Antitrust Action with SESAC over Music Licensing Rates and Terms – Radio Watches and Wonders if It Can Get a Similar Deal

In a case that has been watched by many AM licensees and debated at a number of broadcast conferences in the last few years, the FCC on Friday denied the “Tell City waiver,” by which the licensee of an AM station in Indiana sought to buy an FM translator in Kentucky and move it to Indiana, on a non-adjacent channel, and use it to rebroadcast their AM station.  This sought to expand the “Mattoon waiver” (about which we have written many times including articles here and here) which effectively changed the definition of a “minor change” for an FM translator that could be approved in a single application, without waiting for any sort of translator filing window. 

The current rules define a minor change as one where the translator’s 1 mv/m service contour at both the current and proposed sites overlap.  The Mattoon waiver treated applications as minor changes where the service contours did not overlap – as long as the interfering contour of the translator at one site overlapped with the protected contour of the station at the other site – essentially meaning that a translator could not exist at both the current and proposed sites without prohibited interference.  The Tell City waiver would have eliminated even that connection between the present and proposed sites for the translator – allowing essentially a move of any FM translator from one place to another, and from one frequency to another, regardless of whether the new location had any connection with the original site.  That attempt to stretch the definition of a minor change led the Commission’s Media Bureau to deny the request.
Continue Reading FCC Denies “Tell City Waiver” to Move Translator to Distant Non-Adjacent Channel to Rebroadcast AM Station

Right as everyone was preparing to leave town for the long weekend, the FCC issued its Report and Order on the regulatory fees for 2014, and also issued a Public Notice setting the deadline for paying those fees as 11:59 PM on September 23.  For broadcasters, the FCC also issued a Mass Media Fee Filing Guide providing details on the fee filing process, and provided a fee “look-up” tool on the Commission’s website to see what the fees are for a particular station.  The FCC adopted all the fees for broadcast stations as proposed in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (about which we wrote here) with the minor exception of its fees for TV stations, where there were very slight adjustments in the amounts to be paid.  The fees for all categories of broadcasters are provided at the end of this article. 

There are a couple of new wrinkles in the fee filings for broadcasters for this year.  First, there will be no more no more checks or other paper forms of payment.  All payments must be made electronically, through wire transfers, electronic payments, or with a credit card.  If you send a check, it will be returned, and you will be assessed a late fee if the electronic payment is not made by the 23rd.
Continue Reading FCC Regulatory Fees Due On or Before September 23 – What’s New for This Year’s Fees?

It’s come to our attention that the FCC’s Media Bureau has recently been granting applications for changes in the transmitter sites of FM translators to be used for AM stations with conditions on the subsequent use of that translator.  The conditions seem to be added to the construction permits granted to applicants who filed an application for a site change and relied on the Mattoon waiver (see our discussion of that waiver here) to expedite the relocation to the new transmitter site.  The condition requires that the translator be used only with the AM station for a period of 4 years.

A similar condition was proposed in connection with the FCC’s proceeding on AM improvements, where the FCC proposed to open a window for the filing of applications for new translators, but to limit the applicants to AM licensees who want to use those translators to rebroadcast their AM station (see our summary of the proposal for a translator window for AM station owners here).  Obviously, that proposal for an AM-only window for translator applicants has not been adopted, and there has been some objection to the proposal to permanent tie any translator granted as a result of that window to the AM station that initially asks for it.  For instance, some comments suggest that a translator be allowed to change primary stations if the primary station is moved to another AM in the same market owned by the same company, or that it be allowed to be transferred should the AM station cease operations (as there will no doubt be some AMs that may not be able to survive even with an FM translator).  But, in the new condition now being added to translator moves granted pursuant to a Mattoon waiver, any such limitation is not provided.
Continue Reading New Conditions on Mattoon Waivers for FM Translators Used for AM Stations – Mandatory Rebroadcast of AM on the Translator for 4 Years

The FCC has asked for public comment on whether it should extend the online public inspection file obligation to radio, and also whether it should adopt an online public file obligation for cable television and satellite television operators.  The latter proposal originates in a recent petition by the Sunlight Foundation and two other…

We wrote last week about the FCC’s determination of which applicants are to be preferred in several groups of mutually exclusive applications for new Low Power FM stations.  We warned full-power FM broadcasters to review the preferred applicants as broadcasters have 30 days from last week’s public notice to file petitions to deny against such LPFM applications citing interference concerns or other issues with those applications.  Now, a number of additional LPFM applications have been found by the FCC to be ready for grant, and broadcasters need to review these applications – and be prepared to review a steady stream of these applications, all with different petition to deny deadlines, over the next few months.  Where did these applications come from?

 In the rules for the LPFM window, the FCC decided that once it made determinations about tentative winners in mutually exclusive groups of applications, all LPFM applicants not selected (or those in ties) could file amendments to their applications seeking new channels – including major changes specifying brand new channels at different sites having no relation to the original application but for meeting the general requirements that the controlling parties in these applicants be local to the service area that they propose to serve.  As these amendments are processed on a first-come, first-serve basis, many LPFM applicants were apparently ready to go with amendments as soon as the list of tentative winners was released.  And these amendments have started to come out on public notices, announcing 30 day petition to deny deadlines (see, for instance, this list of Broadcast Applications released yesterday by the FCC, at pages 8-11).
Continue Reading More LPFM Applications for Broadcasters to Review to Assess Potential Interference Issues, and New Petition to Deny Deadlines

The FCC is beginning to consider the amount of annual regulatory fees to be paid by broadcasters and other entities regulated by the FCC.  These fees should be due in August or September of this year, prior to the start of the government’s fiscal year on October 1.  To begin the review process, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking setting out its proposed fees for this year, as well as highlighting a few issues for public comment concerning the computation of fees in the future.  Comments on the FCC proposals are due on July 7, with reply comments a week later.

Regulatory fees are to be paid by entities regulated by the FCC in proportion to the costs of their regulation, computed by the number of FCC employees who are tasked with administering the rules for a particular service.  Congress tells the FCC how much the FCC needs to raise from fees, and the FCC divides up that burden by the number of “full time equivalents” (FTEs) who are assigned to regulating a particular service.  The FCC spends much time in its NPRM evaluating how to assign the responsibility for various employees to a particular service in order to arrive at the proper allocation of fees.  The Commission asks for comments on these proposals which, when adopted, might affect the allocation of fees to the entities regulated by the Media Bureau (like broadcasters) and by those regulated by other FCC bureaus.  The Commission also noted a few broadcast-specific proposals.
Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comments on Proposals for This Year’s Regulatory Fees

The FCC yesterday issued a Public Notice announcing a new round of EEO audits.  Letters to about 180 radio stations went out asking for evidence of their compliance with the FCC’s EEO rules.  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 non-vacancy specific supplemental efforts to educate their communities about job opportunities in the media industry. The form audit letter was also released by the FCC and attached to the Public Notice. Responses from the audited stations are due to be filed at the FCC by July 25. Licensees should carefully review the list of affected stations contained in the Public Notice to see if any of their stations are on the list. 

The audit letter requires all stations with 5 or more full-time (30 or more hours per week) employees to provide information about their EEO programs.  Even stations with fewer than 5 full-time employees need to report the names and positions of their employees, and provide any information about law suits, EEOC complaints or similar employment actions brought as a result of  equal employment or discrimination matters.  The requirements for stations with 5 or more employees are more significant.
Continue Reading Another Round of EEO Audits of Radio Stations Announced by the FCC

On June 6, FCC application fees are going up by 8%.  The new fees were published in the Federal Register yesterday, here.  This Federal Register publication sets out all of the new fees.  To make sure that your applications are processed on a timely basis, be sure to pay the proper higher fees, starting on June 6. The old fees have been in place since 2009 (see our report here), so remember to adjust to the new fees.  The fees for the most common broadcast services are set out below:
Continue Reading FCC Application Fees Going Up By 8% – Effective June 6, 2014

March is one of those few months on the FCC’s regulatory calendar where there are few routine filing deadlines.  While stations that filed their renewal applications in February need to continue to run their post-filing announcements, and those that are going to file renewals in April (the end of the renewal cycle for radio stations) should be running their pre-filing announcements, the month is otherwise a quiet one.  There are no regularly-scheduled renewal filing deadlines, no deadlines for annual EEO or ownership reports, and no quarterly issues programs lists or children’s television reports.  All of those deadlines return with a vengeance in early April.  To help keep track on those dates applicable to stations in your area, we prepared a Broadcasters Regulatory Calendar, available here, that tracks many routine FCC filing deadlines, as well as other deadlines of importance to broadcasters throughout the remainder of 2014 – including lowest unit rate windows for the political broadcasting season, dates for submission of SoundExchange royalties, and some of the other regularly recurring deadlines for broadcasters .

 There are some comment dates in FCC proceedings of interest to broadcasters that fall later this month.  We recently wrote about the extension of the reply comment deadline for the proceeding to look at Revitalizing the AM Band (see our summary of the issues raised in that proceeding here and here).  Those Reply Comments are due on March 20.  On that same date, Reply Comments are due in an FCC proceeding to Accessibility of User Interfaces and Video Programming Guides.  The next week, on March 25, Reply Comments are due in the proceeding looking to change the FCC’s Sports Blackout Rules.  And for those stations lucky enough to be selected for the FCC’s latest random EEO audit, the responses are due on March 31 (see our article here). 
Continue Reading 2014 Broadcasters’ Legal Calendar – and March FCC Regulatory Dates of Importance