Cable Carriage

Subscribe to Cable Carriage via RSS

Each year, at about this time, we pull out the crystal ball and make predictions of the issues affecting broadcasters that will likely bubble up to the top of the FCC’s agenda in the coming year.  While we try each year to throw in a mention of the issues that come to our mind, there are always surprises, and new issues that we did not anticipate. Sometimes policy decisions will come from individual cases, and sometimes they will be driven by a particular FCC Commissioner who finds a specific issue that is of specific interest to him or her.  But here is our try at listing at least some of the issues that broadcasters should expect from Washington in the coming year.  With so many issues on the table, we’ll divide the issues into two parts – talking about FCC issues today, and issues from 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 – starting first with issues affecting all stations, then on to TV and radio issues in separate sections below. 

General Broadcast Issues

There are numerous issues before the FCC that affect both radio and television broadcasters, some of which have been pending for many years and are ripe for resolution, while others are raised in proceedings that are just beginning. These include:

Multiple Ownership Rules Review: In April, the FCC finally addressed its long outstanding Quadrennial Review of the broadcast multiple ownership rules – essentially by punting most of them into the next Quadrennial Review, which probably won’t be resolved until 2016.  Issues deferred include any revisions to the local ownership limits for radio or TV (such as loosening the ownership caps for TV stations in smaller markets, which the FCC tentatively suggested that they would not do), any revision to the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule (which the FCC tentatively suggested that they would consider – perhaps so that this rule can be changed before the newspaper becomes extinct), and questions about the attribution of TV Shared Services Agreements (which the FCC is already scrutinizing under an Interim Policy adopted by the Media Bureau).
Continue Reading What Washington Has in Store for Broadcasters in 2015 – Part 1, What’s Up at the FCC

Last week, the Senate approved a reauthorization of STELA, the new bill called STELAR (the “STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014”), adopting the version that had been approved by the House of Representatives earlier in the month.  In addition to simply giving satellite television companies (essentially DISH and DirecTV) the a five-year extension of their rights to rebroadcast the signals of over-the-air television stations without authorization from every copyright holder of the programming broadcast on those stations, STELAR made other changes to both the Communications and Copyright Acts that will have an impact on TV station operators once this bill is signed by the President.  The Presidential signing is expected before the end of the year.  [Update, 12/5/2014 – the President signed the Bill yesterday evening, so it is now law]

Some of the important provisions for TV stations contained in this bill include provisions that impact not only the relationship between TV stations and satellite TV companies, but also ones that have a broader impact on the relationship of TV stations with all MVPDs, including cable systems. There is also a provision actually providing more latitude for LPTV stations to negotiate carriage agreements.  Some of the specific provisions of this bill include:

JSA Extension:  STELAR will give TV stations currently operating with a Joint Sales Agreement with another station in their market which they cannot own under the current multiple ownership rules 6 more months to terminate such operations – until December 19, 2016 (after the next Presidential election).  See our discussion of the changes in JSA attribution here and here.
Continue Reading Congress Passes STELAR – Renewing Authorization of Satellite Carriers Carriage of TV Stations – With Some Important Changes to JSA, Retransmission Consent and Market Modification Rules

While we are in the Holiday season, the regulatory obligations faced by broadcasters don’t stop.  December brings a continuation of the TV renewal cycle, though we are nearing the end of that cycle.  Renewal applications for all TV, Class A and LPTV stations in the following states are due on December 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  These stations need to file their first two post-filing license renewal announcements on the first and 16th of the month.  Stations that filed their license renewal applications in October also will be broadcasting their post-filing announcements on those same days (their last two announcements).  Those would be stations in the following states and territories: Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, and Saipan.  TV stations in the states that file license renewals on February 1 (those in New York and New Jersey) have to start running their pre-filing announcements on the December 1 (and run a second on December 16).

There are other routine filings due in December.  On December 1, Commercial and Noncommercial Full-Power and Class A Television Stations and AM and FM Radio Stations with employment units with 5 or more full-time employees in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont all need to complete their EEO Public File Report and place that report in their public file (and on their websites, if they have one).  Noncommercial stations still have obligations to file Biennial Ownership Reports on every other anniversary of the filing of their license renewal applications.  That means that these reports are due on December 1 for Noncommercial Television Stations in Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; and on the same day for Noncommercial AM and FM Radio Stations in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Continue Reading December Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Renewals, EEO Reports and Noncommercial Biennial Ownership Reports in Some States; TV Ancillary and Supplementary Revenue Reports; As Well as LPTV Rulemaking Comments and Many Other Expected Actions

Since our note Friday about November regulatory dates for broadcasters, it’s become clear that the FCC will be acting on two more matters of interest to broadcasters – particularly radio broadcasters though each have some implications for TV as well.  First, as we hinted at the end of our article on Friday (the rumors that we had heard having now been confirmed), Chairman Wheeler has circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the expansion of the online public file to radio (as well as cable and satellite).  And, secondly, the FCC has announced that, at its open meeting on November 21, it will open a rulemaking to modernize the disclosure rules for on-air contests conducted by broadcasters – rules which have resulted in FCC fines over the last few years.

The fact that the online public file proposal for radio has now matured into a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is confirmed by the FCC’s list of Items on Circulation (basically, draft orders that the Commissioners currently have in front of them for review and voting), which now lists that item near the top of its list.  See the list of Items on Circulation, here: http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-items-circulation.  While most folks in radio knew that the day would come when their public files might be required to go online, the speed with which the FCC now seems to be acting is what is most surprising, as it was only a bit over two months ago that the FCC took comments on whether or not to even consider that proposal (see our article here).  But, with lightning speed, the order appears to be moving forward.  How fast will it be implemented?
Continue Reading Formal Proceedings to Begin to Revise Rules for Broadcasters’ On-Air Contests and Expand the Online Public File Obligations to Radio, Cable and Satellite

The FCC announced two significant policy initiatives by Blog post in the last week – perhaps recognizing that the Internet provides a better way of packaging a message about policy directions than an unpredictable news conference.  The two decisions announced this week by Blog post were (1) the Chairman announcing that he has directed that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking be circulated among the other Commissioners to treat Over-the-Top TV providers (“OTT” providers, usually those that provide service over the Internet) of linear programming as MVPDs – meaning that they would be treated, for regulatory purposes, in much the same way as cable and satellite TV services, and (2) an announcement by the head of the incentive auction task force that the auction by which some of the broadcast TV spectrum will be purchased from TV users and resold to wireless carriers for broadband wireless uses will be postponed from its expected date in the summer of 2015 until early 2016.  We will write about the postponement of the auction later.  But what does the MVPD proposal mean?

The MVPD issue is one that we last wrote about here.  At the urging of some OTT providers, apparently including Aereo, the FCC has been urged to treat these providers, when they provide “linear” programming (programming that is provided at set times on a set schedule, in the manner of broadcast TV or cable programming, as opposed to the on-demand programming of a Netflix or Hulu), in the same fashion as cable and satellite.  The Chairman, in his blog post, announces his support for an FCC proceeding to review that proposal, apparently looking to use linear Internet programmers as a new competitive force against cable and satellite TV.  By treating these services as MVPDs, they could get access to over-the-air TV programming (if they can negotiate retransmission consent agreements with the TV stations) and equal access to programming provided by vertically integrated cable programmers (those programmers that have attributable ownership from cable system operators).  But, obviously, there are some big “ifs” here.
Continue Reading FCC Policy by Blog Post – Over-the-Top Internet-Delivered Television Programming Providers May be Treated as MVPDs, a Reaction to Aereo?

Could a change in the FCC treatment of Internet delivered video services be in the works – and how would that affect services like Aereo?  There were a number of published articles last week that suggested that the FCC was considering extending the definition of a Multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) to over-the-top video providers or, as they are apparently being referred to, as Online Video Distributors (OVD) who provide linear programming like a cable or satellite company (as opposed to an on-demand provider like NetFlix).  While Chairman Wheeler at a press conference following last week’s open FCC meeting reportedly stated that the issue was “kicking around” implying that no decisions had been made, the FCC did announce that it was making a long-outstanding proceeding to look at this issue into a “permit but disclose” proceeding, meaning that parties can lobby the FCC on the issue as long as they file statements for the record disclosing the substance of their conversations with decision-makers.  What does all this mean?

If the Commission were to consider OVDs to be MVPDs, they would presumably be covered by all of the rules that apply to cable and satellite – including provisions that allow equal access to cable network programming in which the cable companies have a financial interest, and would also be subject to the must carry-retransmission consent regime that is applicable to other MVPDs, requiring MVPDs to negotiate with (and in many cases pay) TV stations to carry their programming.  The open proceeding to consider OVDs as MVPDs was started by a company called Sky Angel that focused on family-friendly programming.  The service initially delivered its programming by satellite, but migrated it to the Internet, at which time they wanted access to cable programming including Animal Planet.  When access to that programming was denied, they complained to the FCC.  The FCC staff initially denied the complaint, determining that MVPDs had to be “facility based,” meaning that they had to own the actual facilities that delivered the programming to the consumer.  The full Commission over two  years ago asked for public comment on whether this decision was correct – we wrote about that request for comment here and here – and the proceeding has essentially sat at the FCC ever since, until it began to get some renewed interest in connection with the Aereo case.
Continue Reading Will FCC Extend MVPD Rules to Online Video Providers – Including Retransmission Consent Fees and Program Access Rules?

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…

The Supreme Court decision in the Aereo case seemed to be the end of the line for the service that was retransmitting television stations signals without consent, as it found that the broadcasters were entitled to an injunction to force Aereo to cease the public performance of their signals without consent.  In fact, Aereo itself seemed to think so too, shutting off its service soon after the decision.  But in a move that was surprising to some, Aereo has apparently not thrown in the towel, and it is now back in Court with a two-pronged argument as to why its service is still viable (see its letter to the Court here).  First, it argues that, as the Supreme Court seemed to think that Aereo acted like a cable system and should be treated in the same manner as a cable system for purposes of determining whether its retransmission of a television stations signal was a public performance, it might as well be treated like a cable system for all purposes, and thus it should be entitled to carry the signals of TV stations pursuant to the statutory license granted to cable systems by Section 111 of the Copyright Act.  Second, it argues that, even if it does not qualify for treatment as a cable system, it should nevertheless be able to retransmit television signals – just not in real time, as the Aereo contends that the Court decision only prevented simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmissions of the television stations’ signals.  Offering once again a fearless prediction – I doubt these arguments will help Aereo any more than did their arguments before the Supreme Court.

Admittedly, their argument that they qualify as a cable system under the Copyright Act has some appeal.  In fact, as we noted in our summary of the oral argument before the Supreme Court, the Justices even asked why the company did not qualify as a cable company.  Section 111 of the Copyright Act defines a cable system as follows:

A “cable system” is a facility, located in any State, territory, trust territory, or possession of the United States, that in whole or in part receives signals transmitted or programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and makes secondary transmissions of such signals or programs by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service.

That language is seemingly broad, covering not just what most of us think as a cable system (one that uses wires to transmit TV programming to the customer), as it talks expansively of “other communications channels” to deliver programming.  Of course, when satellite TV started, they were unsure of their status under this definition, and ended up getting a whole new section of the act to determine their ability to retransmit local TV signals to their subscribers.  But even if this section can be read expansively to cover Aereo, what does that get them?
Continue Reading Not Dead Yet – Aereo Tries To Reinvent Itself By Arguing that it is a Cable System Entitled to Carry Television Stations Pursuant to the Statutory License

The FCC yesterday issued an order imposing a $2.25 Million fine on a set of companies that operated a system that retransmitted TV signals to households in large housing units in the Houston area.  The system had paid retransmission consent fees to the TV stations, then stopped doing so, claiming that it was changing so as to operate as a Master Antenna Television System (MATV).  MATV systems are exempt from paying retransmission consent fees under certain defined circumstances.  This exemption was adopted for apartment complexes and other large residential dwelling units to allow residents to receive over-the-air television so as to not force all of the residents to have an antenna in their own residential units, which might not be feasible or optimal for TV reception.  The problem in yesterday’s case, according to the FCC decision, was that this company did not in fact act as an MATV system, but instead continued to deliver its programming to the dwelling units by means of its fiber connection to a single headend, where TV programs were bundled with traditional cable network programming.  According to the decision, the system continued to transmit TV signals through its fiber network for as much as 208 days after the expiration of the retransmission consent agreements with the TV stations whose signals it was carrying.

FCC rules require that cable systems and other MVPDs (multichannel video programming distributors) receive the consent of TV stations before retransmitting their signals.  The exception for MATV systems is a limited one. It provides that the signals of TV stations be made available to the residents of the dwelling units that are served “without charge and at the subscribers (sic) option” and that the receiving device be either owned by the subscriber or building owner, or “available for their purchase upon the termination of service.”  The Commission further faulted the service for apparently having continued to deliver TV programming to subscribers by its fiber service from its headend, even after installing master antennas at the buildings in which the subscribers lived.  Simply having the antennas available was not enough to excuse the system from the retransmission consent obligations when the actual signals were sent by fiber. 
Continue Reading FCC Fines Cable System $2.25 Million for Retransmitting TV Stations Without Consent

In today’s Federal Register, the FCC is published its new rule on prohibiting the joint negotiation of retransmission consent agreements by stations that are not commonly owned.  According to the notice, “it is a violation of the duty to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith for a television broadcast station that is ranked among the …