Programming Regulations

Subscribe to Programming Regulations via RSS
  • The FCC announced that it has corrected its CORES database which had overstated the regulatory fees to be paid by
…

Our recent posts have been obsessed with the FCC’s regulatory fees and the issues with the CORES fee filing system miscomputing the fees for many radio stations (an issue that seemingly has now been resolved so that payments can be made by the September 26 deadline).  In doing so, we have minimized our coverage of some of the other interesting decisions and regulatory activity from the FCC and other agencies that affect broadcasters.  One of those actions involved the proposal of a now-silent AM station to move from the small Alabama community of  Bay Minette, Alabama to another small Alabama community, Spanish Fork.  The Commission issued a letter saying that they could not grant the application as the proposal would move the station from a rural area to a community within an urbanized area – the Fairhope-Daphne urbanized area.  The FCC found that this move would violate the FCC’s rural radio policy unless a showing could be made that there were public interest reasons to rebut the application of the policy in this case.  The letter gave the applicant 30 days to attempt to rebut the presumption against the move.   

The rural radio policy was adopted more than a decade ago to, in theory, preserve program diversity in rural areas by restricting the move of radio stations into more urbanized areas through community of license changes.  The policy restricts rural stations from changing their city of license to a location from which the station could place a principal city contour over 50% of any urbanized area (see our articles here and here for more details on this policy).  As the proposed move in the Alabama case would allow the AM to cover more than 50% of the Fairhope-Daphne urbanized area with its proposed new 2 mv/m contour, the change would be prohibited unless a special showing can be made overcoming the presumption against such moves, even though the move would allow the AM station to cover over 250,000 more people than it currently does.  The Commission notes that it also disfavors removing a second local service (a service licensed to a particular community) from a community of over 7,500 people.  As Bay Minette has over 7,500 people, and the town has only one other existing radio station, the move of the AM station would also run afoul of this policy.  These presumptions are very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome absent some showing that the FCC’s technical analysis is incorrect. Continue Reading FCC Applies Rural Radio Policy to Block Move of Silent AM Station to New City of License – Do We Still Need a Rural Radio Policy? 

  • The FCC announced that annual regulatory fees must be paid through its CORES database by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on
…
  • The FCC released its Second Report and Order setting the annual regulatory fees that broadcasters must pay for 2024. 
…

It seems like virtually every panel at every broadcast and media convention, at some point, ends up involving a discussion of Artificial Intelligence. Sessions on AI are filled to capacity, and sessions unrelated to the topic seem to have to mention AI to appear relevant.  Whenever there is a topic that so thoroughly takes over the conversation in the industry, we lawyers tend to consider the legal implications.  We’ve written several times about AI in political ads (see, for instance, our articles here, here and here).  We will, no doubt, write more about that subject (including addressing further action in the FCC’s proceeding on this subject about which we wrote here, on the Federal Election Commission’s pending action on its separate AI proceeding, consideration of which was again postponed at its meeting last week, and on bills pending in Congress to address AI in political advertising). 

We’ve also written about concerns when AI is used to impersonate celebrities and to create music that too closely resembles copyrighted recordings (see, for instance, our articles here and here).  When looking for new creative ways to entertain your audience, a broadcaster may be tempted to use AI’s ability to have a celebrity “say” something on your station by generating their voice with some form of AI.  As we noted in our previous articles, celebrities have protected interests in their identity in many states, and there has been much recent activity, caused by the advent of easily accessible generative AI that can impersonate anyone, to broaden the protections for the voice, image, and other recognizable traits of celebrities.  A federal NO FAKES Act has also been introduced to give individuals more rights in their voice and likeness.  So being too creative with the use of AI can clearly cause concerns.Continue Reading Using Artificial Intelligence in Developing Broadcast Programming – Watch for Legal Issues

It is time for our update on the coming month’s regulatory dates and deadlines to which broadcasters should be paying attention – and the deadline that probably is most important to all commercial broadcasters is not yet known.  That, of course, is the deadline for the payment of annual regulatory fees – which must be made before the federal government’s October 1 start of the new fiscal year.  We expect an announcement of the final decision on the amount of those fees for various broadcasters, and the deadlines for payment, in the next few days.  Keep on the alert for that announcement.

A second big date for all commercial broadcasters is September 6, when the lowest unit rate period for political candidate advertising – the “political window” – opens for the November 5 general election.  During this 60-day period prior to the general election, legally qualified candidates buying advertising on a broadcast station get the lowest rate for a spot that is then running on the station within the same class of advertising time and in the same daypart (see our article here on the basics of computing LUR).  Candidates also get the benefit of all volume discounts without having to buy in volume – i.e., the candidate gets the same rate for buying one spot as the station’s most favored advertiser gets for buying hundreds of spots of the same class.  For a deeper dive on how to prepare for the November general election, see our post, here, which also includes a link to our comprehensive Political Broadcasting Guide. Continue Reading September 2024 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – FCC Regulatory Fees, LUC Window for the General Election, Comment Deadlines on AI in Political Advertising and More

  • Some of the big news for broadcasters this week came not from the FCC, but from the Federal Trade Commission:
…
  • The FCC announced that oppositions are due August 27 in response to the National Association of Broadcasters’ petition for reconsideration
…

The agenda for the Federal Election Commission’s August 15 Open Meeting was released last week, and it contains a proposed Notification of Disposition of the FEC’s review of a July 2023 petition for rulemaking filed by the advocacy group Public Citizen seeking to initiate a proceeding to address the use of Artificial Intelligence in campaign communications.  The FEC asked for public comment on that petition last August (see our article here).  The draft Notification and accompanying memorandum circulated by the three Republican members of the FEC proposes to deny the request to initiate such a proceeding.  As the FEC has equal representation of Democrats and Republicans, even if all of the Democrats disagree with the position advocated in the Notification, it would appear that the proposal would still be on hold for the foreseeable future as there would not be a majority of Commissioners necessary to move it forward.

The Public Citizen petition asked that the FEC “clarify that the [Federal Election Campaign Act’s prohibitions] against ‘fraudulent misrepresentation’ (52 U.S.C. § 30124) applies to deliberately deceptive AI-produced content in campaign communications.”  The draft Notification finds that the FEC lacks the statutory authority to initiate the proceeding – that the fraudulent misrepresentation language applies to a misrepresentation of a sponsor of a campaign ad, not to misleading messages in the ads themselves.  The Notice also contends that the FEC is “ill-positioned to take on the issue of AI regulation and does not have the technical expertise required to design appropriately tailored rules for AI-generated advertising.”  The draft notice suggests that, before any action is taken by the FEC, Congress must first authorize it.   Continue Reading FEC Appears Ready to Take a Pass on Regulating AI in Political Ads

  • The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announced that October 4 is the deadline for EAS Participants to file
…