Digital Television

Subscribe to Digital Television via RSS

Yesterday, in a very short one page decision, the US Court of Appeals rejected the requests filed by public interest groups to stay the effect of the FCC’s decision to reinstate the UHF discount (see our article here about some of the issues involved in this stay request, and our article here about the reinstatement of the UHF discount by the current FCC). For the foreseeable future, this decision will free many broadcast television groups to acquire more television stations as UHF stations (which most TV stations now are) count for only half their audience reach in assessing compliance with the 39% limit on the national audience share that any TV owner can have. While, contrary to some press reports, this does not signal the Court’s final approval of the FCC’s decision to reinstate the discount, it does suggest the direction which the Court is likely to take in its assessment of this Commission decision.

In rejecting the stay, the Court merely says that the public interest groups did not meet the high standards necessary for a stay. As we wrote in our article the week before last, and have written before in other contexts where stays of administrative decisions have been sought (see e.g. our article here), there is a high burden for any petitioner to meet before a stay is ordered. Basically, the court looks at questions including whether the petitioner has shown that it is likely to ultimately prevail in the final decision in the case, whether there are irreparable damages that will occur from not issuing the stay and how the equities of the situation weigh in deciding whether a stay should be imposed. Presumably, the Court here either decided that the public interest groups had not shown that they were likely to prevail in the ultimate appeal of the FCC’s decision, or that they had not shown that there would be irreparable harm from not imposing the stay.
Continue Reading Court Rejects Stay on FCC’s Reinstatement of UHF Discount – Does it Mean TV Ownership Consolidation is in the Clear?

The incentive auction, where the FCC agreed to buy the spectrum of numerous TV stations so that they could repackage that spectrum and sell it to wireless users, ended with the FCC’s Closing Notice released in April. But, in order to clear contiguous blocks of spectrum for the wireless companies who bought spectrum in the…

June brings some of the normal regulatory deadlines for stations in certain states. EEO Public Inspection File Reports need to be placed in the public file (or uploaded to the FCC-hosted public file for TV and large-market radio stations) by Full-Power and Class A Television Stations and AM and FM Radio Stations in Arizona, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia that are part of an Employment Unit with 5 or more full-time employees. EEO Mid-Term Reports for Radio Station Employment Units must be filed by radio station employment units with 11 or more full-time employees located in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and Television Employment Units with five or more full-time employees in Michigan and Ohio.

There are few broadcast proceedings with comment dates in June. As we wrote here, the FCC has proposed to amend its regulatory fees for broadcasters, in particular changing the allocations of the amount owed by the radio industry to allocate a greater burden to big stations in big markets, and less to smaller stations in small markets. Initial comments are due on June 22, with replies due on July 7.
Continue Reading June Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Comments on Reg Fees, ATSC 3.0 and Routine EEO Filings Highlight the Month

The FCC last week released a Public Notice describing the process for the filing of applications for replacement channels for LPTV stations and TV translators that are displaced by the incentive auction.  As the repacking of the TV band following the incentive auction will require LPTV and TV translator stations now operating on channels above 37 to move to a new channel below that channel, and as others will be displaced by full-power stations being moved from high channels to channels below 37 (or simply being rearranged on their channels to make room for some of the stations being repacked into the smaller TV band), this displacement window will be necessary for these LPTV/TV translator stations to continue to operate. The Public Notice sets out that the FCC will open a displacement window after full-power stations that were repacked as a result of the incentive auction have had their own windows when they can request alternative channels or increased facilities, as set out in the FCC’s auction Closing Notice (see that notice here).  The FCC estimates that the LPTV/TV Translator window will likely be announced 7 or 8 months after last month’s Closing Notice in the auction – meaning that it is likely to be announced at the end of this year.  As the announcement of the window will give LPTV and translator stations 60 days to prepare applications, and the window itself will last 30 days, it looks like we are looking at displacement applications being due late in the first quarter of 2018.

In addition to displaced LPTV stations and displaced TV translators, full-power TV stations that lost coverage areas because of the repacking will be able to file in this displacement window for a new class of translators.  In fact, these new translators will receive a preference over displacement applications for LPTV stations and TV translators if both happen to file for the same channel.  The FCC will, however, provide mutually exclusive applicants filed during the window an opportunity to move to a different channel to resolve any conflict.
Continue Reading FCC Details Window for LPTV Stations and TV Translators Displaced by the Incentive Auction to Seek New Channels

May is one of the few months without the normal list of quarterly filings and EEO public file reports.  But, just because there are none of these regular filings due, that does not mean that the month will be a quiet one for broadcasters on the regulatory front.  In fact, far from it.  There are obligations for television broadcasters in connection with the incentive auction and the subsequent repacking of the TV spectrum, an FCC meeting that will start two proceedings that could dramatically reduce the regulatory burdens of broadcasters, and comments due on the FCC’s proposal for the next generation of television broadcasting.

In connection with the incentive auction, on May 11, stations that are relinquishing their channels in exchange for compensation from the FCC must file an FCC Form 1875 detailing where payments for that relinquishment will go.  After that information is received and processed, the FCC will send an email to the payee asking for bank account information that must be entered into the “CORES Incentive Auction Financial Module.”  Stations looking for their auction payouts need to observe these details so the FCC knows where to send their money.
Continue Reading May Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Incentive Auction, ATSC 3.0 and Broadcast Deregulation

With the FCC last week announcing the results of the reverse auction portion of the incentive auction and setting the timetable for the repacking of the TV spectrum, the next question on everyone’s mind will be how successful the television industry will be in adhering to the schedule established by the FCC for clearing…

At its meeting yesterday, the FCC took two big actions affecting broadcasters. First, it approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking looking to adopt a transition plan for television broadcasters to move to the new ATSC 3.0 standard. The Commission apparently took the general actions previewed in its draft order released earlier this month, though…

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced yesterday that he plans to test a new FCC procedure – releasing drafts of FCC orders to be considered at future FCC meetings at the same time as the proposed agenda for the meeting is released, weeks in advance of the meeting. On the draft agenda for the February 23rd meeting are two items of interest for broadcasters, and draft orders for both of these items were released yesterday – one for radio and one for TV. By releasing these drafts early, all parties affected by the orders can review them and spot issues which can be brought to the Commissioners’ attention before the orders are adopted. We write about the radio item below, and will cover the draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for next-generation TV using the ATSC 3.0 standard in a separate article.

For radio, the draft order would permit an expansion of the area in which an FM translator rebroadcasting an AM station can be located. Under current rules, the 1 mv/m contour of translator must be entirely contained within the lesser of the daytime 2 mv/m contour of the AM station or within a circle with a 25 mile radius from the AM transmitter site. With severely directional AM stations, sometimes the ones most in need of help from FM translators, translators can be restricted to service areas only a few miles from the primary AM station in some directions – leaving the AM stations unable to serve their entire market and fill in the holes in their coverage area. This issue was raised as one of many issues for consideration in the FCC’s AM revitalization proceeding, about which we wrote here. Under the draft order released yesterday, translators will now be able to be located in a much greater area – as long as the 1 mv/m contour stays within a 25 mile radius measured from the AM site or within the 2 mv/m contour of the AM station – whichever is greater. This promises to give all AM stations the opportunity to serve their markets with FM translators and, for larger AM stations, gives them the ability to fill in their service areas with FM translators (perhaps multiple translators) over a much larger area.
Continue Reading FCC Chairman Pai Promotes Transparency – Releases Draft Orders on Next-Generation TV and FM Translators for AM Stations – What Will Be Considered for Radio at February FCC Meeting?