Digital Television

Subscribe to Digital Television via RSS

The FCC’s planned incentive auction, by which the Commission hopes to pay broadcasters to surrender some of their TV licenses so that these stations’ spectrum can be repurposed for wireless broadband uses, is almost impossible to define in a simple blog post.  The FCC issued its Order on the Incentive Auction process several months ago and, despite that order being over 300 pages long, many issues remain unresolved.  Last month came the announcement that the National Association of Broadcasters had filed a court challenge to that order (on the first business day after the order was published in the Federal Register, meaning that there is still two weeks in which additional challenges may be filed in Court).  While the NAB is seemingly limiting its current challenge to a few issues (according to a Blog post on the NAB website), there still are many other issues to which broadcasters have no final answers as there are further proceedings yet to come that will help to decide exactly how the process will play out for TV stations in the coming years.  What did the NAB challenge, and what other issues for broadcasters are left to be resolved?

So far, the NAB has only needed to file a notice with the court stating that it is challenging the order.  That is a very limited pleading that gives only the most cursory outline of the NAB’s grounds for its objections to the rules.  Details of all of the grounds for the objections to the ruling do not need to be included in the appeal notice.  Instead, the details will be set out in the NAB’s brief in the case, which will likely not be due for several months.  In the interim, there have been some pleadings asking for expedited processing of the appeal, supported by both the NAB and the FCC, so as to not delay the auction (or to avoid having the auction take place before the appeal is resolved).  From these pleadings, and from an NAB press release and the Blog post referenced above, the principal reasons for the NAB’s challenge can be discerned.  Essentially, there appear to be two issues that are raised.
Continue Reading NAB Brings Court Challenge to Incentive Auction Rules – As Broadcasters Wait For More Details on the Auction Process

The Commission has set the date for comments on it Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on certain aspects of the captioning of Online Video clips.  We recently summarized the FCC action setting up compliance deadlines for the captioning of video clips taken from programs that are shown on TV with captions, and then repurposed for online use.  While the Commission has already established the obligations for TV broadcasters to take these clips and caption them when shown online on the broadcaster’s own website or through its own app, there are still certain areas to which the rules have not yet been extended on which comments are sought. The Comment deadline is October 6, with replies due November 3 (see the full text of the FCC decision here, and the Federal Register publication of the comment dates here).  What is being considered?

Basically, questions are asked about three areas. The first is whether to require that clips be captioned when they are shown on third-party websites.  The current rules require that full programs shown on TV and repurposed to the Internet be captioned when shown on third-party sites, but the new rules for clips were not immediately extended that far, as the Commission seeks comments on the costs and difficulties that might exist in such an extension.
Continue Reading Comment Dates Set for Rulemaking on the Required Captioning of Online Video Clips – What is Being Considered?

Next week, on August 6, the FCC will be taking the initial comments on its Quadrennial Review of the multiple ownership rules – looking at what limitations should be placed on the ownership of broadcast stations by one individual or company.  As we have written, this Review follows the FCC’s resolution of the last Quadrennial Review, started in 2011, where the FCC made joint sales agreements between TV stations in the same market “attributable interests” – meaning that you can’t enter into a JSA unless you can own that station under the rules.  All of the other issues on the local ownership rules – including whether to change the rules setting the number of radio or TV stations that can be owned in a single market, and whether the rules against the same market cross-ownership of radio and TV stations, and of daily newspapers and broadcast stations should be modified – were pushed back to this new Review, which is not supposed to be finally decided for another two years.  While we wrote about some of the hidden nuggets in this proceeding in defining radio and TV markets here, let’s look a little deeper at some of the other issues involved in the review – today the local TV ownership rules.  In advance of next week’s comment deadline, there has already been much relevant regulatory action this past week – including the FCC’s approval of the Sinclair’s acquisition of the Allbritton TV stations (but only after Sinclair agreed to surrender to the FCC for cancellation TV stations licenses in two markets as its ownership of those stations would not be allowed under the current rules), and a GAO report addressing Shared Services Agreements between TV stations.

Currently, the FCC allows an owner to hold one TV license in a market, except in certain limited circumstances where two can be owned.  An ownership combination is allowed in the normal course only where there would be eight independently owned stations left in the market after the combination, and only where the combining stations are not both Top 4 stations in the market.  The Commission does also allow some combinations where one of the stations is “failing,” but that is looked at only on a case-by-case waiver basis.  Many broadcasters have argued that, particularly in small markets where there is insufficient revenue to support multiple fully competitive stations, greater consolidation should be allowed.  But the Commission has tentatively rejected that idea in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the new Quadrennial Review.  Why?  Seemingly, small market consolidation was not favored on the simple theory that consolidation is bad, and on the hope that, if the FCC forbids consolidation (and stops any sort of sharing arrangement, like the JSAs that it has already prohibited, and the Shared Services Agreements that it has suggested in this proceeding need to be further limited), minorities and other new entrants will enter the market.  Both of this week’s events – the Sinclair acquisition and the GAO report, seem to cut against the FCC’s beliefs.
Continue Reading Comments on Quadrennial Review of FCC’s Broadcast Ownership Rules due Next Week – Local TV Ownership Issues Highlighted By GAO Report and Sinclair Acquisition Approval

The FCC’s Media Bureau yesterday released a Public Notice asking for comment on a proposal to extend the construction deadline until September 1, 2015 for any construction permit for a digital LPTV station or a TV translator that will expire before that date.  September 1, 2015 is the deadline for all TV translators and…

The FCC on Friday voted to extend its rule about captioning TV video repurposed to the Internet so as to cover not only full television programs, but also clips of those programs.  While the rules already require that TV programming that is captioned when broadcast to be captioned when retransmitted in full over the Internet, the new rules, to be phased in as described below, require that clips of TV programs that were broadcast with captions also be captioned when repurposed for online use.  In addition to adopting the rules for phasing in this new requirement, the Commission also asked several questions in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asking some technical questions about the rules that it already adopted, and also whether to expand the requirements to other services and to programming that mixes both programming excepted from TV and programming that is original to the Internet.   

While the full text of the FCC’s decision has not yet been released, from the discussion at the FCC meeting and from its Public Notice about the rules, the outlines of the newly imposed obligations seem fairly clear.  The rules adopted for video clips, and the timeline for the implementation of these rules, are as follows: 

  • January 1, 2016 – captioning for “straight lift” clips, which are defined as a single excerpt of a program that had been captioned when first shown on TV, with the same video and audio as had been broadcast.
  • January 1, 2017 – captioning for video montages – which are collections of clips from different broadcasts, where all had been captioned when broadcast.  
  • July 1, 2017 – captioning for clips of time-sensitive (i.e., live or near-live) programming.  There will be a “grace period” between TV airing and required online captioning of 12 hours for live programming and eight hours for near-live programming.  (The staff confirmed during the post-meeting press conference that once the grace period expires, the posted clip must be captioned; if an earlier, non-captioned version was posted, it must be replaced.)

The Commission discussed that there would be some potential for waivers of these rules for small market stations, but the details of the standards that would apply were not detailed.  Also, there are some limitations on the obligations for posting of video clips that do not apply to the captioning obligations for full-length programs.  Those limitations are discussed below. 
Continue Reading FCC Adopts New Obligations to Caption Online Video Clips of TV Programs

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 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 has just imposed a freeze on the filing of displacement applications for LPTV and TV translator stations, as well as displacement applications for Class A TV stations.  A displacement application is one that is filed to preserve a secondary station’s operations when a full-power station makes changes in its technical facilities that…

In the last few weeks, while I was on vacation and otherwise occupied, there have been many big developments in the broadcasting and music industries that I’ll try to write about separately – including the release of the FCC’s Order setting up the first official outline of the television incentive auction process and the Department of Justice beginning an examination of the antitrust consent decrees that govern ASCAP and BMI.  But a couple of quick FCC decisions bear mentioning here.

First, the FCC announced a change in the CALM Act, regulating loud commercials.  We wrote about the FCC’s order implementing the Act, here.  One of the FCC’s decisions in implementing the Act was that stations could comply with its provisions by meeting the standards set out in A/85 Recommended Practice, a standard adopted by the ATSC (the Advanced Television Standards Committee).  The FCC noted that such standards would be revised from time to time.  That standard has now been revised by ATSC, and stations, to remain in compliance with this safe harbor for compliance under the CALM Act, are expected to comply with the revised standard by June 4, 2015.
Continue Reading Odds and Ends – CALM Act Revisions, New Effective Date for Higher FCC Application Fees, and a Case Exploring the Reach of the FCC Character Policies

Some quick items to update some of our recent articles.  The FCC has granted extensions of time to comment in two rulemaking proceedings, and released its tentative agenda for its next open meeting where it will adopt an initial order in the incentive auction proceeding.  That’s the proceeding that we most recently wrote about…