Multiple Ownership Rules

Subscribe to Multiple Ownership Rules via RSS

The FCC yesterday approved the sale of the stock of Univision Communications to a consortium of private equity companies.  In order to approve the deal, the FCC agreed to a $24 million dollar payment to the US Treasury by Univision as part of a consent decree for alleged violations of the children’s television rules.  The consent decree, attached to the FCC decision on the sale, while providing for one of the largest fines ever paid to the FCC, provides little guidance to broadcasters on what constitutes educational and informational programming directed to children, the source of the violation found by the FCC. But the separate Statement of Commissioner Copps raises a new issue – one he looks for the FCC to study and report on – the effect of private equity and debt on the ability of broadcasters to operate in the public interest. 

The Copps opinion suggests that the debt incurred in connection with acquisitions by private equity companies may impair the ability of broadcast stations to operate in the public interest, as money needed for operations is instead funneled into debt repayment.  Of course, private equity firms are not the first owners of broadcast companies to incur debt, nor is there any evidence that I have seen that private equity companies which own broadcast companies have proportionally more debt than other broadcast owners.  What would the FCC hope to accomplish through such an investigation?  I can’t see the FCC evaluating each transaction that comes before it to determine if the proposed debt structure would be too much of a burden on the operations of a station.  Nor could I foresee the FCC putting broadcast ownership restrictions on certain classes of otherwise qualified potential broadcast owners.Continue Reading Follow the Money and Find the Public Interest?

As we wrote on Friday, the Copyright Royalty Board released to the parties their decision setting the sound recording music royalties for Internet radio for the years 2006-2010 – and the rates will be increasing significantly (absent success on appeal or in settlement discussions). The rates and appeal process are set out in our post on Friday.  The parties have until Monday, March 5 at noon, to request that the Board keep portions of the decision that contain confidential proprietary information out of the public record. Thus, the text of the decision is not yet public. Nevertheless, many parties are asking for more specific information about the decision and its impact. Certainly, when the decision is public, everyone will want to make their own judgments. But, until that time (which should be soon as the Board was careful to avoid using any significant amount of confidential information), I offer some observations about the decision (from my vantage point as a party who represented some of the webcasters involved in the proceeding), as well as thoughts on some of the questions that I have seen posted on various discussion boards this weekend.

First, it is essential to understand exactly what this decision covers. The Board’s decision covers only non-interactive webcasters operating pursuant to the statutory license. Our memo, here, discusses the statutory licensing scheme, and what a webcasting service must do to qualify to pay the royalties due under this statutory license. Essentially, a webcaster covered by this decision is one which operates like a radio station – where no listener can dictate which artists or songs he or she will hear (some limited degree of consumer influence is permitted, but a webcaster must comply with the restrictions set out in our memo).  Also, the webcaster cannot notify their listeners when any specific song will play. The decision does cover the Internet transmissions of the over-the-air content of most broadcast stations. 

The royalties are paid to SoundExchange – a nonprofit corporation with a Board made up of representatives of artists and the record companies. The royalties go to the copyright holders in Sound Recordings and the performers on those recordings ( the copyright holder is usually the record label. Royalties are split 50/50 – and the artist royalties are further divided 45% to the featured artist and 5% to any background musicians featured on the recording). 

The decision by the Board was the result of a long proceeding – which began in 2005. A summary of the proceeding can be found in our posting, here. Satellite radio also has to pay similar royalties, as do services that provide background music to businesses ("business establishment services"). Separate proceedings are underway to determine rates for these services.

With that background – here are some more thoughts on the decision – obviously in very summary form. The Board is charged with determining the royalty rates that would be determined by a willing buyer and a willing seller in a marketplace transaction. The Board was clear in the decision that it would look simply for evidence of what such a deal would be – it would not look at policy reasons why certain groups of webcasters (including small commercial webcasters or noncommercial webcasters) should get some special rate.Continue Reading More on the Copyright Royalty Board Decision on Internet Radio Music Royalties

At the NAB Broadcast Leadership Conference in Washington today, Congressman Ed Markey, Chairman of the House of Representatives Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, announced that the subcommittee would hold hearings on the state of radio.  These hearings would examine not only over-the-air radio, but also Internet radio…

While the FCC Commissioners are in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania today holding the third of the Commission’s promised six field hearings on multiple ownership, an interesting story was published yesterday, announcing an unofficial "town meeting" of consolidation critics in Columbus, Ohio on March 7.  While these unofficial meetings have become a staple of the broadcast landscape, they traditionally…

By now, everyone knows that XM and Sirius have announced plans to merge into a single nationwide satellite radio service provider.  This plan is, of course, subject to approval of the FCC.  The NAB has announced plans to oppose the merger, and Congress today scheduled hearings on the matter, to be held next week.  The obvious issues to be considered by the Department of Justice and the FCC will be whether the merger will be anti-competitive and whether it will serve the public interest.  But there are numerous other legal issues, possibly affecting other FCC proceedings, that may well come out of the consideration of this merger.

For instance, the merger raises the question of whether satellite radio is a unique market that should not be allowed to consolidate into a monopoly, or whether there is a broader "market" for audio programming encompassing not only satellite radio, but also traditional over-the-air radio, iPods, Internet radio, and other forms of audio entertainment.  While the opponents of the merger may argue that satellite radio is a unique market, such a finding may affect the broadcast multiple ownership proceeding, where some broadcasters are advancing arguments similar to the satellite companies in hopes that the FCC will loosen multiple ownership restrictions. 

Another issue that seemingly will be raised by the merger is how important a la carte programming is to FCC Chairman Martin.  The Chairman has been pushing both satellite and cable television companies to allow consumers to purchase only the channels that they want rather than whole packages of channels.  He has argued that consumers could save money by buying only the channels that they want, and consumers could also avoid programing that they don’t want (like adult oriented content).  Service providers have countered that forcing the unbundling of program tiers will make it economically unfeasible to offer many of the more niche program channels.  Published reports indicate that part of the merger proposal to be advanced by the satellite companies may include a proposal for a la carte pricing.  Thus, this case may show how important the Chairman really believes such offerings are – and whether that offering may help tilt the public interest considerations in the proceeding.Continue Reading XM and Sirius – The Issues Beyond the Issues

The new Congress has started its oversight of the FCC, and one of the first topics to be brought up is the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. Presidential candidate and head of the House of Representatives Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee, Dennis Kucinich, was the first to call for hearings about the reintroduction of the doctrine.  Others have joined in that cry, including it in a bill introduced in the House and Senate to reform the media ownership rules. But do these perhaps well-intentioned Congressmen really remember what the Fairness Doctrine meant? Basically, bland broadcasting.

The Fairness Doctrine was, for the most part, declared unconstitutional by the FCC in the late 1980s (though some limited aspects of the policy have persisted until very recently). The Commission decision finding the Doctrine to be unconstitutional made sense, as its application clearly abridged the free speech rights of broadcasters. Basically, the Fairness Doctrine required fair and balanced coverage of all controversial issues of public importance. While that may sound like a good goal (one good enough to be adopted by Fox News), in fact it resulted in bland programming. Continue Reading The Fairness Doctrine – Prescription for Bland Broadcasting

About this time every year, predictions are offered as to what will happen in the coming year.  Since everyone else does it, we’ve offered our own predictions as to what Washington has in store for the broadcast industry in 2007.  Find a copy of our predictions in the memo on our firm website, here. …