Television

Subscribe to Television via RSS

All EAS Participants – including all full-power broadcasters – must complete the 2017 ETRS Form One on or before August 28, 2017.  We wrote about this obligation here. The filing deadline was set for next week as the ETRS system is used so that stations can report on the results of nationwide EAS tests.…

Earlier this week, the Campaign Legal Center and Issue One, two political “watchdog” organizations, filed FCC complaints against two Georgia TV stations, alleging violations of the rules that govern the documents that need to be placed into a station’s public inspection file regarding political “issue advertising” (see their press release here, with links to the complaints at the bottom of the release). FCC rules require that stations place into their public files information concerning any advertising dealing with controversial issues of public importance including the list of the sponsoring organization’s chief executive officers or directors. Section 315 of the Communications Act requires that, when those issues are “matters of national importance,” the station must put into their public file additional information similar to the information that they include in their file for candidate ads, including the specifics of the schedule for the ads including price information and an identification of the issue to which the ad is directed. The complaints allege that, while the stations included this additional information in their public file, the form that was in the public file stated that the sponsors of the ads did not consider the issues to be ads that addressed a matter of national importance, despite the fact that they addressed candidates involved in the recent highly contested election for an open Congressional seat in the Atlanta suburbs.

Section 315(e)(1)(b) states that an issue of national importance includes any advertising communicating any message directed to “any election to Federal office.” The stations against which the complaints were filed used the NAB form that asks political and issue advertisers to provide the information necessary for the public file, as do many broadcast stations. The FCC does not require that the NAB form be used but, as it is designed to gather the required information, many stations use it. Some simply take the form and place it into their public file with a copy of their advertising order form specifying the rates and advertising schedule and assume that their FCC obligation is complete. But, here, the complaints allege that the advertisers, in response to a question on the form that asks whether the advertising was directed to an issue of national importance, checked the box that said that the ad was not a Federal issue ad despite the fact that the ad addressed candidates or issues involved in the election for the open Congressional seat. The form was apparently then simply put into the public file in that way without additional notation or correction by the station.
Continue Reading Complaints Filed Against TV Stations for Public File Violations on Political Issue Ads

The FCC announced a Consent Decree with a New Jersey TV station where the licensee agreed to make a $17,500 payment to the US Treasury for failing to identify “core” educational and informational programming directed to children with the required “E/I” symbol on the programming itself. This programming was, according to the consent decree, run…

Earlier this week, the FCC announced the first of its post-auction filing windows for TV stations that are forced to abandon their current channels as a result of the repacking of the TV band after the broadcast incentive auction. As a result of the shrinking of the TV band, many TV stations were required to…

It’s almost August, and despite it being vacation time for many, there are still regulatory dates that must be addressed by the broadcast industry. Routine filing dates this coming month include the need for EEO Public Inspection File Reports to be included in station’s public inspection files (either the online files for all TV stations and those radio stations that have already converted, or in the paper files for those radio groups that have not yet made the switch) for stations that are part of employment units with five or more full-time employees in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Links to these reports must also be included on the home page of any stations in such employment units, whether or not the station’s complete public file is available online. For more about station’s ongoing EEO obligations see our article here. EEO Mid-Term Reports are due to be file with the FCC on August 1 by Radio Station Employment Units with 11 or more full-time employees in California and Television Employment Units with five or more full-time employees in Illinois and Wisconsin. For more on these Mid-Term reports, see our article here.

August also brings the date for Reply Comments in the Modernization of Media Regulation proceeding (see our articles here and here). Reply comments in that proceeding looking to amend or repeal broadcast regulations that no longer make sense in the modern media environment are due by August 4. Many media companies are also watching the Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding, looking at what some people refer to as the Open Internet or Net Neutrality issues, where reply comments are due August 16.
Continue Reading August Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – EEO, Translators, Media Regulation Modernization, EAS, Incentive Auction and More

Earlier this week, we wrote about some of the upcoming dates for broadcasters in the TV incentive auction process – particularly those dealing with the repacking process. Developments continue, with the FCC yesterday issuing a Public Notice announcing that stations that relinquished their spectrum in the incentive auction will be receiving their payouts from the…

As the repacking of the TV band proceeds after the Incentive Auction, the FCC has issued some guidance as to what comes next for TV stations. Obviously, in the near future, TV stations that agreed to surrender their spectrum in the auction will get notice from the FCC to expect their payments from the proceeds collected from the wireless companies that purchased the repackaged surrendered TV spectrum. For stations that are remaining in operation, who last week were required to file construction permit applications for their repacking to the smaller TV band, and their estimates of the expenses that they will incur in the repacking process, the FCC published an article on its blog, here, setting out what is next. The article notes that 25 stations will be filing soon in a new window for stations that either cannot construct on the channels that they were assigned by the FCC, or need expanded facilities to replicate their existing coverage. After that window, there will be another window when the remaining repacked stations can file to maximize their facilities on their new channels. Following those two windows, there will be a window for LPTV stations and TV translators who were displaced by the auction to file for new channels (see our post on that window here).

The other big question is the funds necessary for repacking. The FCC issued a news release last week, here, indicating that the total amount that TV stations and MVPDs estimated that they will need to deal with the repacking is $2,115,328,744.33 – significantly over the $1.75 billion allocated by Congress to reimburse these entities for the repacking. While last week’s FCC blog post notes that the initial estimates will be subject to FCC review and some costs may be disallowed, there is some speculation that Congress will intervene to increase the allowable reimbursement. Commissioner O’Rielly issued a statement, here, urging such action, noting that “no broadcaster or MVPD, nor their viewers or listeners, should be harmed by the repack process.”
Continue Reading What’s Next for TV Stations Repacked as a Result of the Incentive Auction? – Recent Flurry of FCC Announcements

Yesterday, the FCC issued a Public Notice declaring the proposed acquisition of the Tribune television stations by Sinclair Broadcast Group a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding. This is not an unusual occurrence in a large broadcast combination where policy issues may be considered. This simply allows the parties to the transaction, and any other party who files…