Discussion of FCC, copyright, advertising and other legal issues of importance to radio and television broadcasters and other media companies
Here are some of the regulatory developments of the last week of significance to broadcasters, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
…
Here are some of the regulatory and legal actions and developments of the last week of significance to broadcasters, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
…
The 2017 deregulatory changes to the FCC’s ownership rules have been on hold since December 2019, when the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, overturning those rule changes, became effective (see our post here). The court’s decision has put any broadcast ownership changes on hold (including potential changes in the radio ownership rules which were not part of the 2017 FCC decision) while the FCC contemplated how to deal with the fallout from the Third Circuit’s decision. The potential for another way forward arose last week when the Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal of the Third Circuit decision – granting a petition for “cert” (a petition asking the Court to hear the appeal) – the announcement of that grant coming out on Friday.
As we wrote here, the Third Circuit rejected the FCC’s 2017 ownership rule changes, finding that the FCC had done an inadequate job of assessing how prior ownership relaxations had affected the ability of minorities and other potential new entrants to break into the ranks of broadcast ownership. Despite arguments from the FCC that it had already analyzed the impact of changes on new entrants and taken steps to mitigate any adverse impact, the Court seemed to be directing the FCC to do a more searching analysis of the historical impact of the relaxation of ownership restrictions on new entrants. Because this analysis would affect any ownership rule change, including those proposed for radio (see our article here), the decision effectively froze further FCC consideration of all broadcast ownership rule changes.…
Continue Reading Supreme Court to Hear Appeal of Third Circuit Rejection of FCC Changes to Broadcast Ownership Rules
Here are some of the regulatory developments and legal actions of the last week of significance to broadcasters, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
…
Here are some of the regulatory and legal actions and developments of the last week of significance to broadcasters, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.
…
Where do all the Washington DC legal issues facing TV broadcasters stand? While we try on this Blog to write about many of those issues, we can’t always address everything that is happening. Every few months, my partner David O’Connor and I update a list of the legal and regulatory issues facing TV broadcasters.…
With the October 1 deadline coming up for retransmission consent/must carry elections, and the likely commencement of many retransmission consent negotiations throughout the country, the FCC last week issued a decision that emphasizes the importance of “good faith” retransmission consent negotiations. In this action, the full Commission denied an Application for Review that sought to reverse the Media Bureau’s ruling that eighteen stations had failed to negotiate in good faith with an MVPD for retransmission consent. The Commission’s decision also included a Notice of Apparent Liability announcing that each station faces a $512,228 penalty for these violations of the requirements for good faith negotiation.
In May, we wrote about the earlier stages of this case where another licensee agreed to a consent decree based on essentially the same allegations addressed in last week’s decision. The consent decree was based on violations described in a decision of the FCC’s Media Bureau released last November (here) finding that 18 television station licensees, operating stations in separate markets, had failed to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith. Given the size of the proposed fines on the stations named in last week’s Notices of Apparent Liability, it is worth reviewing the basis of this decision. Even though many of the details are redacted to protect proprietary information, the basis for the decision can still be gleaned from this series of decisions.…
Continue Reading FCC Proposes $512,228 in Fines to TV Stations for Violating Rules Requiring Good Faith Negotiation of Retransmission Consent Agreements
The FCC’s order on this year’s annual regulatory fees was released by the FCC this week. The FCC rejected calls to forgive broadcast regulatory fees because of the economic fallout of the pandemic, noting that only Congress could pass such relief, as the FCC is required by law to collect fees sufficient to cover the costs of its operations. The Commission did, however, offer some terms for the payment over time of the fees by companies that are hard-hit by the economic conditions that resulted from COVID-19, and simplified the waiver process for stations that can demonstrate that they cannot pay the fees without imperiling their service to the public. The order also rejected the NAB’s request to revisit the fees for radio, though some minor downward adjustments were made in those fees based on the FCC’s finding that it had undercounted the number of radio stations that were to share in the payment of these fees.
The FCC determined that it could not waive all regulatory fees for broadcasters, or broadly excuse them from the 25% late-payment penalty, because these obligations are in the statute and cannot be waived without Congressional authorization. The FCC is required by law to collect these fees before the October 1 start of the next fiscal year in an amount sufficient to reimburse the US Treasury for the costs of operating the Commission. While the FCC felt itself powerless to totally waive the rules, it did simplify the process for individual stations to make requests for waiver of the fees if the payment of the fees would imperil their ability to serve the public or to extend the payments out over time – without the need for any upfront payment of a significant portion of the fees. The FCC noted that the Office of the Managing Director will be issuing a separate Public Notice establishing the process for asking for waiver or deferral, so watch for the notice coming soon as these request will likely need to be filed before the payment deadline, which will also be established in a subsequent public notice. But the Order does say that the requests for waiver and payment over time can be made in a single email to the FCC, and that the Managing Director’s office is to work with broadcasters to try to help them provide the necessary documentation to support the waiver or deferral of payments.…
Continue Reading FCC Releases Order on Regulatory Fees – No Widespread Waivers of Fees But Some Deferred Payments Possible – Payment Dates Coming Soon
As broadcasters continue to respond to the coronavirus while sometimes juggling work duties with family responsibilities like at-home virtual schooling, it would be easy to overlook regulatory dates and responsibilities. This post should help alert you to some important dates in September that all stations should keep in mind – and we will also provide a reminder of some of the dates to remember in early October. As in any year, as summer ends, regulatory activity picks up – and this year appears to be no different.
Each year, in September, regulatory fees are due, as the FCC is required to collect them before the October 1 start of the new fiscal year. We expect that the final amount of those fees, and the deadlines and procedures for payment, should be announced any day. For broadcasters, one of the big issues is whether those fees will be adjusted downward from what was initially proposed by the FCC in their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding. The National Association of Broadcasters has been leading an effort (we wrote about this here and NAB detailed recent meetings between CEO Gordon Smith and members of its legal department with FCC staff here and here) urging the FCC to reduce the amount of fees owed by broadcasters, in part because of the financial toll the pandemic has taken on the industry and in part because the proposed fee structure, which is determined by estimates as to how many FCC staffers are detailed to regulating an industry and the related benefit that industry receives, inaccurately reflects the number of FCC employees who work on radio issues. Look for that decision very soon.…
Continue Reading September Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters: Annual Regulatory Fees, Lowest Unit Rate Window Opening, C-Band Reimbursement, Rulemaking Comments and More
Many broadcasters who receive satellite-delivered programming do so through satellite dishes picking up transmissions from spectrum referred to as the C-band. Part of that spectrum is to be auctioned to wireless users for 5G service starting in December. Because of that auction, those using the band to receive satellite-delivered programs will be compressed into a…
