Television

Subscribe to Television via RSS

The FCC is beginning to consider the amount of annual regulatory fees to be paid by broadcasters and other entities regulated by the FCC.  These fees should be due in August or September of this year, prior to the start of the government’s fiscal year on October 1.  To begin the review process, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking setting out its proposed fees for this year, as well as highlighting a few issues for public comment concerning the computation of fees in the future.  Comments on the FCC proposals are due on July 7, with reply comments a week later.

Regulatory fees are to be paid by entities regulated by the FCC in proportion to the costs of their regulation, computed by the number of FCC employees who are tasked with administering the rules for a particular service.  Congress tells the FCC how much the FCC needs to raise from fees, and the FCC divides up that burden by the number of “full time equivalents” (FTEs) who are assigned to regulating a particular service.  The FCC spends much time in its NPRM evaluating how to assign the responsibility for various employees to a particular service in order to arrive at the proper allocation of fees.  The Commission asks for comments on these proposals which, when adopted, might affect the allocation of fees to the entities regulated by the Media Bureau (like broadcasters) and by those regulated by other FCC bureaus.  The Commission also noted a few broadcast-specific proposals.
Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comments on Proposals for This Year’s Regulatory Fees

The FCC has just imposed a freeze on the filing of displacement applications for LPTV and TV translator stations, as well as displacement applications for Class A TV stations.  A displacement application is one that is filed to preserve a secondary station’s operations when a full-power station makes changes in its technical facilities that…

TV stations in markets outside of the Top 50, and stations in the Top 50 markets that are not affiliated with one of the Big 4 networks, need to begin to upload new material placed into their political files into their Online Public File as of July 1 – just a few weeks away.  David O’Connor of my firm and I conducted a webinar for television broadcasters from 7 states last week, where we discussed this new obligation for smaller TV stations, and talked about what documents are supposed to go into the political file.  We also reviewed the content of the NAB forms that are helpful in tracking the documentation that needs to go into the political file.  The slides from that presentation are available here.

 As we wrote in April, the FCC has already reminded broadcasters of this new obligation as of July 1, and there does not appear to be any potential that the obligation will be changed between now and the July 1 effective date.  Broadcasters need not upload political file contents that were placed into the file before July 1 (they should continue to be kept in the station’s paper file for the two-year required holding period).  But, starting on July 1, all new political file documents need to be placed into the station’s Online Public file accessible through the FCC website.
Continue Reading A Presentation on the Obligations of Small Market TV Broadcasters to Begin To Upload Their Political Files into Their Online Public File as of July 1

In the last few weeks, while I was on vacation and otherwise occupied, there have been many big developments in the broadcasting and music industries that I’ll try to write about separately – including the release of the FCC’s Order setting up the first official outline of the television incentive auction process and the Department of Justice beginning an examination of the antitrust consent decrees that govern ASCAP and BMI.  But a couple of quick FCC decisions bear mentioning here.

First, the FCC announced a change in the CALM Act, regulating loud commercials.  We wrote about the FCC’s order implementing the Act, here.  One of the FCC’s decisions in implementing the Act was that stations could comply with its provisions by meeting the standards set out in A/85 Recommended Practice, a standard adopted by the ATSC (the Advanced Television Standards Committee).  The FCC noted that such standards would be revised from time to time.  That standard has now been revised by ATSC, and stations, to remain in compliance with this safe harbor for compliance under the CALM Act, are expected to comply with the revised standard by June 4, 2015.
Continue Reading Odds and Ends – CALM Act Revisions, New Effective Date for Higher FCC Application Fees, and a Case Exploring the Reach of the FCC Character Policies

The FCC’s proceeding on its multiple ownership rules, adopting rules that make Joint Sales Agreements “attributable” (meaning that they “count” for multiple ownership purposes – one TV station can’t do one with another unless it can own that other station) and starting a new proceeding to review its other ownership rules, was adopted in late …

In today’s Federal Register, the FCC is published its new rule on prohibiting the joint negotiation of retransmission consent agreements by stations that are not commonly owned.  According to the notice, “it is a violation of the duty to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith for a television broadcast station that is ranked among the …

The National Association of Broadcasters on Monday asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn the interim processing policy statement adopted by the FCC’s Media Bureau requiring that the FCC scrutinize every new Shared Services Agreement.  As we wrote last month, the FCC has decided that television Joint Sales Agreements should not be permitted unless the stations involved could be commonly owned.  It also commenced a new rulemaking proceeding to review its multiple ownership rules, including specifically Shared Services Agreements.  The rulemaking notice indicates that the FCC thinks that Shared Services Agreements should be limited, but it is asking for public comment as to what kind of sharing is in the public interest, and which should be prohibited.  Any restrictions on SSAs are but a proposed FCC action, and not any sort of final rule.  Nevertheless, the FCC’s Media Bureau, two weeks before the decision starting the rulemaking proceeding on SSAs, instituted an Interim Policy, effectively requiring a case-by-case analysis of all new agreements that involve sharing arrangements.  It is that interim policy that the NAB is challenging.

What the NAB is saying is that this policy effectively creates new law without the Commission making any decisions in the rulemaking proceeding – effectively prejudging that proceeding even before the public comments have been received.  And the policy does in fact change what had been permitted in the past, as many SSAs had been approved in various FCC proceedings.  Even the standards applied to the evaluation of whether or not such agreements are in the public interest change established FCC policy, e.g. suggesting that any involvement in the financing of one station by another, including the guarantee of a loan, would be impermissible – contrary to explicit decisions by the FCC that loan guarantees were not an ownership attribution issue.  Similarly, options and other potential future ownership rights, under the interim processing guidelines, give rise to a suggestion that the deal is not in the public interest – contrary to FCC decisions made after notice and comment rulemaking proceedings on the multiple ownership attribution policies – that contingent future ownership rights did not give rise to attribution for multiple ownership purposes unless such future interest rights were exercised. 
Continue Reading NAB Files Court Challenge to FCC’s Shared Services Agreement Interim Policy

On June 6, FCC application fees are going up by 8%.  The new fees were published in the Federal Register yesterday, here.  This Federal Register publication sets out all of the new fees.  To make sure that your applications are processed on a timely basis, be sure to pay the proper higher fees, starting on June 6. The old fees have been in place since 2009 (see our report here), so remember to adjust to the new fees.  The fees for the most common broadcast services are set out below:
Continue Reading FCC Application Fees Going Up By 8% – Effective June 6, 2014

The Campaign Legal Center and Sunlight Foundation filed FCC complaints against 11 major market TV stations across the country alleging that these stations had inadequate online political files.  The Center issued a press release about its filings, stating that these complaints “exposed widespread noncompliance with the disclosure requirements” of the law.  The press release went on to say “[w]ithout this information, viewers are denied important information about the organizations and individuals seeking to influence their vote through these ads.”  While the complaints ask that the FCC take appropriate action against these stations, including fines, and begin an education campaign to make sure that other stations don’t repeat these mistakes as the political file goes online for stations in smaller markets on July 1 (see our article here about the FCC’s reminder about this obligation), just how serious were the discovered deficiencies?  As discussed below, many of the issues raised seem to be minor, but they put stations on high alert that their online public files will be scrutinized and must be kept up to date with the utmost care. 

The complaints themselves (which are available through links in the press release) do not reveal widespread systematic violations of the FCC rules.  Instead, each complaints cites a single instance where the station named in the complaint in some way evidenced some noncompliance with the rules. And many of those instances of noncompliance are quite minor.  In each case, the complaints were about disclosures made about the sponsors of issue advertising.  The ads were from non-candidate groups.  In some cases, the ads named a specific political candidate, and alleged that they had voted the wrong way on some specific issue.  Other ads urged viewers of the station to call that Congressman to tell them to vote in a particular way on some issue of importance pending in Congress.  The complaints did not allege that the public file did not contain the names of the sponsors, or the amount that was spent on the ads, or the times at which the ads were to run.  Instead, the allegations in many of the complaints were that, in a single instance, the public file disclosures identified the candidates who were being attacked, but not the issue on which they were attacked.  Is this a violation of the rules?
Continue Reading Complaints Filed against 11 TV Stations Alleging Deficiencies in their Online Political File – Warning to Stations, Your File is Being Watched!

Some quick items to update some of our recent articles.  The FCC has granted extensions of time to comment in two rulemaking proceedings, and released its tentative agenda for its next open meeting where it will adopt an initial order in the incentive auction proceeding.  That’s the proceeding that we most recently wrote about…