FM Radio

Subscribe to FM Radio via RSS

The FCC announced yesterday 2015 regulatory fees are due by 11:59 pm (Eastern Daylight Time) on September 24, 2015.  The FCC also announced that the FCC’s automated filing and payment system (Fee Filer) for FY 2015 regulatory fees was open yesterday and will reopen on Tuesday, September 8 (it is closed today through the holiday weekend as the entire FCC electronic filing system is being shut down for maintenance).  All commercial radio and television stations (and those who hold construction permits for unbuilt commercial stations) must pay these fees.  The fees for radio are the same as were proposed in our article on the FCC’s proposal for the fees, here.  The fees for TV changed slightly from those proposed in May, and are set out at the bottom of this article.  The FCC also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asking a number of questions about potential changes in the computation of broadcast fees in the future.

The FCC reminded all parties who pay fees that checks will not be accepted for regulatory fees.  Instead, all fees must be paid electronically by online “ACH” payment (an electronic payment system that many use for transferring money from one party’s accounts to another’s account), by credit card (though credit card payments will only be accepted when a company’s total fees due are less than $25,000), or wire transfer, all with an accompanying FCC 159-E form which must first be electronically filed through the FCC’s Fee Filer system. 
Continue Reading FCC Regulatory Fees Due September 24 – Plus FCC Proposes Changes in Future Broadcaster Fee Computations

The FCC has asked for comments on a rulemaking proposal that would fundamentally change the way in which LPFM stations operate – proposing that they be allowed to take commercial messages (as opposed to the current limit the they operate noncommercially, only taking underwriting announcements and other noncommercial sponsorships), allowing them to be owned by local small businesses (as opposed to the current rule that limit their ownership to nonprofit organizations), and giving them primary status (protecting them against being displaced by a subsequent move of a full-power station or the initiation of service by a new full-power FM station). The proposal also asks that the limits on ownership, which currently limit most nonprofit groups to ownership of a single LPFM, be lifted. There is also a suggestion that LPFM stations be governed by the same spacing rules that apply to FM translators, letting them locate wherever there is no predicted interference, not limiting them to locations where they meet mileage separation requirements set out by the current rules. This is a new proposal, going beyond the proposal we wrote about here to allow LPFM stations to increase power to 250 watts, on which the FCC recently took comments.

Comments on this proposal are due on August 30. The proposal is not a proposal by the FCC to adopt rules on these matters, but instead just a preliminary notice that the petition asking for these changes to the rules was filed, and asking for public comment as to whether the FCC should take any action and further pursue the proposals being made. Obviously, some broadcasters may want to comment on this proposal which would fundamentally change the nature of the LPFM service.
Continue Reading Proposal Asks that Low Power FM Stations Be Given Primary Status, and Allowed to Operate Commercially

In an article posted on the FCC’s blog yesterday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler listed four actions that would soon be coming out of the FCC to address broadcast issues. For TV, these include looking at what constitutes “good faith negotiations” in the retransmission consent context, and whether to do away with the FCC’s network nonduplication protection rule. For radio, the long-delayed AM revitalization docket will apparently soon be considered by the FCC. And, finally, the FCC may modernize the contest rules for all broadcasters by allowing more online disclosure of contest rules. What are these proceedings all about?

The retransmission consent proceeding grows out of Congress’ adoption of STELAR, which authorized the continued retransmission of broadcast signals by satellite television operators. As part of that legislation, which we summarized here, the FCC was directed to start a proceeding to determine whether it should adopt new rules to define what constitutes “good faith negotiation” of retransmission consent agreements. There has already been significant lobbying on this issue by both sides. Right now, good faith negotiation really has not been an area where the FCC has intervened beyond using its bully pulpit to urge parties to retransmission consent disputes to reach a deal. It is commonly recognized that failing to deal with a MVPD at all would be a violation of the good faith standard, but many MVPDs now want the FCC to become more involved, putting limits on TV channel blackouts, especially just before big televised events (like the Super Bowl or the Oscars), limiting the blackout of web-based programming to subscribers of an MVPD that is involved in a dispute, limiting the bundling of Big 4 network programs with programming from other channels provided by the TV broadcaster, and similar limits. The Chairman’s blog is short on specifics, but does suggest that, while some specific prohibitions may be suggested, the FCC would also be able to look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if a broadcaster and an MVPD were negotiating in good faith (note that these rules apply to broadcast retransmission consent negotiation, not those between MVPDs and cable channels not shown on broadcast TV).
Continue Reading FCC Chairman Details Issues Coming Soon for Broadcasters – Review of Retransmission Consent, Network Nonduplication, AM Improvements, and Contest Rules

The FCC today released an Order setting December 2 as the date for the filing of FCC Form 323 Ownership Reports by commercial broadcast stations. All commercial broadcasters must submit this report. While the report is technically supposed to be filed by November 1 every other year, that date has routinely been extended as the FCC form is far more complicated to complete for many licensees than are the normal ownership reports that are filed after station purchases and sales (see for instance, this article two years ago).

These reports require information as to each owner of a broadcast company as of October 1, 2015.  A unique identifier for each individual named in a report is also required as the FCC is looking to make all ownership information searchable by individual, so that interested persons can determine the interlocking broadcast interests of owners of broadcast stations. As we wrote here, the FCC has recently proposed a way to identify individuals who don’t want their social security numbers to be used to obtain the necessary FCC identification number – though that procedure has not yet been adopted but could quite well be acted on before the filing date. In addition, the form requires that the race, ethnicity and gender of individual owners be reported, so that minority ownership can be assessed and tracked by the FCC. To make all individuals and their interests searchable, the forms require separate fields for different blocks of information including other broadcasts interests of individual owners – making the form complex to complete for companies with multiple owners who have multiple broadcast interests. These reports need to be filed electronically, and can take time to complete, so don’t wait to start work on the biennial report.
Continue Reading FCC Sets December 2 Deadline for Filing 2015 Biennial Ownership Reports for Commercial Broadcast Stations

Whether an FM antenna that is purportedly nondirectional should be reclassified as a directional antenna, requiring that the station which uses it back down its power, was a question that the FCC addressed a few months ago in a case we wrote about here.  There, the FCC concluded that the antenna was in fact designed to radiate in certain directions far more than predicted from an omni-directional antenna, ordering the station that was using the antenna to show cause why it should not be forced to back down its power to protect stations in the direction of its maximum radiation. In a decision released yesterday (available here as a Word document, the PDF link appears to be broken) addressing the response to the Show Cause order – in a very quick action on a contested matter like this – the FCC rejected the showing offered by the licensee to defend its purported nondirectional antenna and ordered the station to reduce power. I was speaking at Georgia Association of Broadcasters annual convention this weekend, and the March decision came up in the discussion, which was of great interest to those interested in technical issues for FM broadcasters. Yesterday’s decision will certainly only fan the flames of discussion going on within the industry about this issue.

As we wrote back in March, the FCC initially found that the Texas station in question (KFWR) had effective radiated power levels almost three times those that would be predicted by its omni-directional antenna power. Looking at other evidence about the antenna, the FCC ordered the licensee to show why it should not be ordered to reduce power to bring its signal within that predicted service area – thus protecting a station that had complained of interference from the seemingly directional nature of the KFWR antenna. In response, the KFWR licensee suggested that all purportedly omni-directional antenna patterns have some degree of directionality, especially when side-mounted on a tower. The licensee argued that the FCC had never set standards for how much of such directionality should be allowed – and should not do so by singling out its application, but instead the FCC should look at this on an industry-wide basis. The licensee also offered to remount its antenna to eliminate anything that had been done to “optimize” its signal. The FCC rejected these proposals.
Continue Reading When An FM Nondirectional Antenna is Really Directional – Round 2, The FCC Does Not Back Down

With tomorrow’s FCC meeting to detail dates and procedures for the TV incentive auction dominating the headlines, there are other August regulatory dates that should not be overlooked. While we never can get to all of the relevant dates in our monthly highlight article, here are a few items worth your consideration. For one, we will soon be seeing details for submitting the regulatory fees that are due from all commercial broadcasters (and most other commercial entities regulated by the FCC) before the end of September. Last year, that notice came out right at the end of the month – immediately before the Labor Day weekend, somewhat later than in past years (see our article here). So be on the alert for that notice, to allow you to be ready to pay those mandatory fees before the applicable deadline.

Already, by the first of the month, commercial and noncommercial full-power and Class A television stations and all radio stations in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin that are part of an employment units with 5 or more full-time employees should have put into their public inspection files their annual EEO Public Inspection File Report, and posted those reports online so that they are accessible to visitors to their station websites. As part of the Mid-Term EEO reporting process we wrote about here, radio stations in the Carolina’s that are part of employment groups with 11 or more full-time employees should have also filed their Form 397 EEO Reports with the FCC by August 3. Noncommercial television stations in Illinois and Wisconsin should also have submitted their Biennial Ownership Reports by August 3, as should have noncommercial radio operators in both North and South Carolina and California. Details on all of these standard regulatory deadlines are available in our Broadcaster’s Regulatory Calendar, here.
Continue Reading August Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – While Incentive Auction Dominates the News, Other Dates to Watch

Yesterday, it was announced that the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) settled its lawsuit with SESAC (see the press release here, and the full agreement here), where the RMLC had charged that SESAC’s practices in collecting its music royalties from the radio industry violated the antitrust laws (we wrote about the filing of the lawsuit here). While there was no admission of guilt by SESAC, it did agree that, between now and 2037, it will negotiate royalties with RMLC on an industry wide basis (up to now, SESAC could negotiate on a station-by-station basis). If RMLC and SESAC can’t agree to a royalty, the royalty rate will be set by an arbitrator – and past SESAC royalties would not have any precedential value in such proceedings (broadcasters have contended that past SESAC rates are far more, in comparison to those charged by ASCAP and BMI, then would be warranted based on the percentage of music from SESAC writers that is played on most radio stations). In subjecting SESAC to industry-wide negotiations and potential arbitration, the settlement is very similar to the deal reached in antitrust litigation between SESAC and the TV Music License Committee (about which we wrote here).

The settlement also tracks the structure of RMLC agreements with ASCAP and BMI (see our articles here and here) in that future SESAC licenses will cover broadcasters not only for their over-the-air programming, but also for their Internet streams and their HD channels (which were charged separately by SESAC for many stations). However, the agreement provides that the unitary license should not diminish the total royalties that would have been paid by the industry to SESAC if these rates were negotiated separately.   In other words, the effect of the unitary license is simply administrative convenience – everything is covered by a single license, so each station does not need multiple licenses from SESAC for its normal broadcast activities. However, unlike the ASCAP and BMI agreements, this agreement puts limits on this unified coverage for a broadcaster’s business that is outside the retransmission of the broadcaster’s over-the-air signals, excluding on-demand subscription services (presumably ruling out Rdio, in which Cumulus has an interest, from being covered by the radio license), and also excluding music-intensive custom radio, specifically ruling out Pandora and iHeartRadio from relying on this license for their online services. The agreement also says that other music users that are not primarily radio operators cannot get coverage for these other non-broadcast businesses simply by buying a radio station. What else does the agreement provide?
Continue Reading Radio Music License Committee Settles Antitrust Suit Against SESAC – What Does it Mean for the Radio Industry?

In the last month, the FCC has released two decisions dealing with efforts by holders of expiring FM construction permits to retain the rights to construct the technical facilities authorized by that permit beyond the expiration date of the permit. In one case, the FCC announced a policy that, from now on, the construction of temporary facilities will be insufficient to warrant the grant of a license application for a new station. In another case, the FCC decided that a station that had an expiring construction permit for modified facilities to upgrade its station from a Class C1 to a Class C0 station, which had twice expired before and been replaced by a new CP each time, was subject to a competing applications filed the day after the expiration of the most recent CP. It is clear from these cases that the FCC’s Audio Division is taking a hard line on the three year deadline on the construction of new facilities for FM stations, and is reluctant to preserve expiring permits, especially if the permit blocks opportunities for the use of the frequency elsewhere.

The first case involved a permittee of a new station who, immediately before the expiration of the three years that it was given by its construction permit to build the station, turned it on and filed a license application that was quickly granted by the FCC. About 10 days later, the new licensee requested authority to go silent while it sought approval of its construction plans for a permanent facility. The station remained silent for almost a year, before recommencing temporary operations from a different transmitter site pursuant to an STA. When the licensee filed for the renewal of its license and another application to move to a different transmitter site and to change city of license, a competitor objected, arguing that the licensee had misrepresented facts to the FCC about whether its station was ready for its initial operations from its original site and contending that the original license should never have been granted.
Continue Reading FCC Takes Hard Line on Efforts to Keep Alive Expiring Construction Permits for Both New FM Stations and Modifications of Existing Stations

Twice this morning, I was faced with the question of whether a business needs a license to play a radio or TV station on their premises, once in a story in one of the broadcast trade publications (see the article here, in the You Can’t Make This Up column toward the bottom of the article) about a gas station that thought that they got around paying ASCAP, BMI and SESAC fees by using “6 or 7” consumer radios around the station. After I saw that article, I thought that it was worth writing this article, as the difference between 6 and 7 radios could make a real difference as to whether the business needs to pay music royalties.

Broadcasters need to be careful about urging their clients to play their stations at their business locations. There are very specific rules, and if the rules are not followed, liability can result. But, as detailed below, there are some exceptions to the obligation of commercial establishments to pay ASCAP, BMI and SESAC that apply specifically to establishments that play only FCC-licensed radio or TV stations. But the details of the exceptions must be observed or there can be issues. All of the performing rights organizations have contractors who travel the country, checking out retailers, bars, restaurants, and other commercial establishments to make sure that they are following the rules. There are periodically press reports about these rights organizations seeking royalties (sometimes through legal actions) from coffee shops, nightclubs, and even farmers markets that publically perform music without signing license deals. So these commercial establishments need to know the rules about music use to avoid becoming a target. As set forth below, the rules are very specific, and broadcasters can actually benefit from the exceptions as, in the limited circumstances set out in the Copyright Act, businesses can play music from FCC licensed outlets without a license, but music from other sources could present an issue. But be careful, as there are very specific rules – and the difference between 6 and 7 radios could be a real issue.
Continue Reading Does a Local Business Need Licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC to Play My Radio or TV Station on Their Premises?

Another month is upon us, with the typical list of FCC dates of importance – and some new issues (including incentive auction developments that will probably be a regular part of our news through a good part of next year). One date of importance to some TV broadcasters was yesterday – July 1 – when TV stations affiliated with one of the Big Four TV networks and located in the Top 60 TV markets need to be carrying at least 50 hours of prime time or children’s programming each quarter containing video description. While most of this programming will come from the networks themselves, affiliates in these markets should be now be passing through enough of this video-described programming to meet the quarterly minimums.

July 10 brings other routine filing deadlines. For all broadcasters, by July 10 you should have in your public file (the online public file for TV stations) your Quarterly Issues Programs lists describing the most important issues that faced your community in the prior quarter and the programming that you broadcast to address those issues. Also due to be filed at the FCC by July 10 is your station’s Children’s Television Programming Report on Form 398 describing the programming broadcast on your station to serve the educational and informational needs of children. In addition, TV stations need to place in their online public file information showing compliance with the commercial limits in children’s programming and, for Class A stations, documentation showing continued eligibility for Class A status. For other dates of importance to broadcasters, see our Broadcaster Regulatory Calendar, here.
Continue Reading July Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues Programs Lists and Children’s Television Reports, Incentive Auction Actions, CRB Webcasting Closing Argument and More