On Line Media

Subscribe to On Line Media via RSS
  • FCC Chairman Carr announced that the FCC will be considering two orders concerning foreign ownership requirements, including those for broadcasters,
…

Today, we would normally publish our look back at the prior week’s regulatory activity of importance to broadcasters but, as we noted last week, we are taking this week off and will publish a summary of the regulatory activity during the two week holiday period next Sunday.  But, as the start of a new month is upon us, we instead offer our regular look ahead at regulatory dates and deadlines for January.   

With each New Year, there are a host of new regulatory deadlines to keep broadcasters busy.  In January, this includes some recurring FCC deadlines like Quarterly Issues/Programs lists for all full power broadcasters, and a host of other quarterly obligations that are not as widely applicable.  For TV broadcasters, the month brings obligations including the annual children’s television reports on educational and informational programming and a public file certification on commercial limits, as well as the extension to stations in 10 additional markets of the audio description requirements. 

In addition to comments in rulemaking proceedings described below, January brings some new obligations.  For commercial broadcasters streaming audio programming on the Internet, there are new SoundExchange royalties that cover performances made on and after January 1, and a requirement for a higher minimum fee due at the end of the month.  There is also a freeze that will be imposed on applications for major changes by existing LPTV stations and TV translators related to a window that will open in March, the first window in well over a decade for the filing of applications for new LPTV stations. 

Let’s look at some of the specific dates and deadlines for broadcasters in January, starting with the routine deadlines that come up every January, and then moving to some of new obligations for 2026.  After that we provide January deadlines for comments in rulemaking proceedings (including reply comments on proposed changes to the FCC’s ownership rules and initial comments on proposals to speed the ATSC 3.0 conversion), a look at lowest unit rate windows that open in January for 2026 elections, and finally a few deadlines in early February.Continue Reading January 2026 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Children’s Television Programming Reporting, New Webcasting Royalties, Expansion of Audio Description Requirements, Comment Deadlines, Political Windows, and More

Wasting no time following the reopening of the government, the FCC has published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 2022 Quadrennial Review in the Federal Register, setting December 17 as the deadline for initial comments on the questions asked by the FCC.  We summarized the issues raised by the FCC in our article here.  While the FCC will review the local radio ownership limits for television, following the prohibitions on owning two of the top 4 TV stations in a market being thrown out by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in July (see our article here), that FCC review will focus principally on whether the ownership limit of two TV stations in a market should be continued, or if one party should be able to own more. The 39% cap on national ownership of TV stations is being considered in a separate proceeding (see our discussion here).  The FCC will also look at the dual network rule, which currently forbids the common ownership of two of the top 4 TV networks.  With control issues seemingly settled for now at the networks, pressure to move on reform of that rule may have lessened.  Probably the biggest impact of the Quadrennial Review will be on radio, where the local ownership rules have remained unchanged since 1996, limiting one owner from owning more than 8 stations (only 5 of which can be FM stations) in even the biggest markets with more than 45 total stations. 

Radio’s role in the media marketplace has become more and more challenging over the last decade, as its traditional place in the car has been challenged by new audio entertainment options.  As those options proliferate, sounding and functioning  more and more like radio, they are becoming more accessible to the public and more and more popular with listeners.  Over-the-air radio now competes with streaming services, podcasts, satellite radio, and other audio media.  These changes in listening habits are coupled with a change in the advertising marketplace, as the digital media giants now take over two-thirds of the local advertising market that was once the province of radio, television and newspapers.Continue Reading December 17 Comment Date Set in 2022 Quadrennial Review Looking at Local Ownership Rules – What is at Stake, Particularly for Radio?

Every four years, the FCC is supposed to conduct a review of its local broadcast ownership rules – the rules that govern the number of radio or television stations in a market in which one person or entity may have an “attributable” interest (some form of control rights defined under very complicated FCC attribution rules). The FCC is supposed to do this regular assessment of these local ownership rules to determine if they continue to be necessary in the public interest as a result of changes in competition.  The last quadrennial review, which commenced in 2018, was not completed by the FCC until December 2023 when it released an order that, for all practical purposes, concluded that there had been no changes in the competition faced by broadcast stations.  In the 2023 order (which we summarized here), the Commission actually tightened the rules for television stations, and it left the rules for radio unchanged despite the significant competition from digital media that had exploded since the last review was completed (see for instance our article here on the explosion of digital competition and its effect on over-the-air radio).  Appeals of the 2023 decision were only resolved in July (see our article here).  With the decision on the appeal complete, the FCC Chair this week announced that the next Quadrennial Review would now begin in earnest. 

The next review, the 2022 Quadrennial Review, was actually started in late 2022 (even before the 2018 review was completed) with the release of a Public Notice (see our article here).  But that Public Notice only asked very general questions about the state of competition in the broadcast industry, and the previous administration took no further action after releasing the Public Notice.  This week, FCC Chairman Carr, in his blog post setting out the issues to be considered at the FCC’s September 30th regular monthly meeting, stated that a 2022 Quadrennial Review Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be on the agenda.  That announcement was followed with a public draft of the NPRM that will be considered at the September 30 meeting.  While it is possible that some changes may be made in the draft, in practice these drafts are generally adopted with few significant modifications.  Thus, we now have an idea of the issues to be considered in the 2022 Review.Continue Reading FCC Begins Quadrennial Review of its Local Ownership Rules for Radio and TV – Should the FCC Relax Broadcast Ownership Rules Based on Competitive Factors?

  • The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announced that October 3 is the deadline for EAS Participants, including broadcasters,
…

In many of the comments filed by broadcasters and their representatives in the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” docket, high on the list of rules suggested for deletion were the local broadcast ownership restrictions.  Changes in these rules were also a subject high on the discussion list in Las Vegas at the recent NAB Convention.  With all of the interest in changes to these rules, we thought that we should spend a little time looking at the possible routes by which FCC action on changes to the ownership rules could occur.

First, it should be noted that the local ownership rules are different from the national cap on television ownership which, as we recently wrote, the NAB has asked the FCC to abolish.  A review of the 39% national audience cap was started in the Pai administration at the FCC (see our article here), and the NAB is seeking to revive and resolve that proceeding, arguing that national caps are no longer necessary given the competition from so many other national video services that are unrestrained by any ownership limitations.Continue Reading Local Broadcast Ownership Rules – How Could Ownership Deregulation Play Out? 

  • The NAB and SoundExchange filed with the Copyright Royalty Board a proposed settlement of the pending litigation over the 2026-2030
…

Yesterday, I wrote about the history of the NCAA’s assembling of the rights to an array of trademarks associated with this month’s college basketball tournaments.  Today, I will provide some examples of the activities that can bring unwanted NCAA attention to your promotions or advertising, as well as an increasingly important development that should be considered when considering whether to accept advertising.

Activities that May Result in a Demand Letter from the NCAA

The NCAA acknowledges that media entities can sell advertising that accompanies the entity’s coverage of the NCAA championships.  However, similar to my discussion in January on the use of Super Bowl trademarks (see here) and my 2024 discussion on the use of Olympics trademarks (see here), unless authorized by the NCAA, any of the following activities may result in a cease and desist demand:

  • accepting advertising that refers to the NCAA®, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, March Madness®, The Big Dance®, Final Four®, Elite Eight® or any other NCAA trademark or logo.  (The NCAA has posted a list of its trademarks here.)
    • Example: An ad from a retailer with the headline, “Buy A New Big Screen TV in Time to Watch March Madness.”  Presumably, to avoid this issue, some advertisers have used “The Big Game” or “It’s Tournament Time!”
  • local programming that uses any NCAA trademark as part of its name.
    • Example: A locally produced program previewing the tournament called “The Big Dance: Pick a Winning Bracket.”
  • selling the right to sponsor the overall coverage by a broadcaster, website or print publication of the tournament.
    • Example: During the sports segment of the local news, introducing the section of the report on tournament developments as “March Madness, brought to you by [name of advertiser].”
  • sweepstakes or giveaways that include any NCAA trademark in its name. (see here)
    • Example: “The Final Four Giveaway.”
  • sweepstakes or giveaways that offer tickets to a tournament game as a prize.
    • Example: even if the sweepstakes name is not a problem, offering game tickets as a prize will raise an objection by the NCAA due to language on the tickets prohibiting their use for such purposes.
  • events or parties that use any NCAA trademark to attract guests.
    • Example: a radio station sponsors a happy hour where fans can watch a tournament game, with any NCAA marks that are prominently placed on signage.
  • advertising that wishes or congratulates a team, or its coach or players, on success in the tournament.
    • Example: “[Advertiser name] wishes [Name of Coach] and the 2022 [Name of Team] success in the NCAA tournament!”

There is a common pitfall that is unique to the NCAA, namely, basketball: tournament brackets used by advertisers, in newspapers or other media, or office pools where participants predict the winners of each game in advance of the tournament.  The NCAA’s position (see here) is that the unauthorized placement of advertising within an NCAA bracket and corporate sponsorship of a tournament bracket is misleading and constitutes an infringement of its intellectual property rights.   Accordingly, it says that any advertising should be outside of the bracket space and should clearly indicate that the advertiser or its goods or services are not sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise associated with the NCAA or its championship tournament.

It should be noted that the NCAA also imposes strict rules about the authorized uses of its trademarks.  The NCAA’s most recent Advertising and Promotional Guidelines for authorized use of its marks are posted online (see here).

Again, importantly, none of these restrictions prevents media companies from using any of the marks in providing customary news coverage of or commentary on the tournament. Trademark law allows you to make references to trademarked terms in news or informational programming where you convey information about those trademarked activities.  But these references should not imply any association between the station (or any sponsor who does not in fact have the rights to state that they are a sponsor) and the NCAA or the tournament (e.g., don’t say that you are the March Madness station in Anytown unless you in fact have the rights from the NCAA to say that). Continue Reading The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same:  Risks of Using or Accepting or Engaging in Advertising or Promotions that Use FINAL FOUR or Other NCAA Trademarks:  2025 Update – Part II

Each year, as the NCAA basketball tournaments get underway, my colleague Mitch Stabbe highlights the trademark issues that can arise from uses of the well-known words and phrases associated with the games in advertising, promotions, and other media coverage. Here is Part I of his review. Look for Part II tomorrow.

This is my tenth annual column for the Broadcast Law Blog on the subject of the potential pitfalls to broadcasters in using the NCAA’s FINAL FOUR and other trademarks or accepting advertising that use the marks.  I began last year’s post with the comment that the last few years had been filled with changes in college sports.  I also noted that the NCAA’s hard line against unauthorized uses of FINAL FOUR or its other marks had not changed.

As will be discussed below, looking back over the last ten years, it is clear that the value of the NCAA’s basketball tournament rights has, however, greatly changed, which helps explain the enduring efforts to challenge unauthorized uses of its marks.  Thus, broadcasters, publishers and other businesses need to continue to be wary about potential claims arising from their use of terms and logos associated with the tournament.

NCAA Trademarks

The NCAA owns the well-known marks March Madness®, The Big Dance®, Final Four®, Final 4®, Women’s Final Four®, Elite Eight®, Women’s Elite Eight®, Road to the Final Four® and The Read to the Final Four® (with and without the word “The”), each of which is a federally registered trademark.  The NCAA does not own “Sweet Sixteen” – someone else does.  However, the NCAA has a license to use the mark and has federal registrations for NCAA Sweet Sixteen®and NCAA Sweet 16®.Continue Reading The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same:  Risks of Using or Accepting or Engaging in Advertising or Promotions that Use FINAL FOUR or Other NCAA Trademarks:  2025 Update – Part I