Television

Subscribe to Television via RSS

Only two weeks ago, we were writing about the FCC’s consideration of TV Joint Sales and Shared Service Agreements (or “side-car arrangements” as some have called them) as being an issue that was just being reviewed at the FCC by the new Chairman and his staff.  Now, according to press reports (including this one), the exploration has quickly moved much further – so far that we apparently will see FCC action in the very near future on these very controversial subjects.  The rumors suggest that the FCC is ready to resolve many of the issues in the current Quadrennial Review of its multiple ownership rules (see our summary of the issues initially raised in that proceeding here) at its March open meeting. According to these rumors, the FCC will prohibit Joint Sales Agreements for television stations in situations where the two stations involved cannot be commonly owned under the FCC’s multiple ownership rules, and at the same time do nothing to relax the broadcast- newspaper cross-ownership restrictions.  This is much the same result on JSAs that was rumored in December 2012, but a harsher result on the cross-ownership issue than the previous FCC Chair was rumored to be ready to take.  In 2012, the proceeding was put on hold to take more comments on the effect of a change in the cross-interest policy on minority ownership (see our article here), and it has sat there since.  This week’s rumors suggest that, as part of the same action (or through a simultaneous action), the FCC will ask about the public interest benefits and harms of Shared Services Agreements in the TV industry.

For investors in television companies and the general public, these rumored actions raise many questions.  How can the FCC take such a decision on the JSA/SSA issue when such agreements have become an integral part of the TV business over the last few years?  What is the difference between a JSA and an SSA?  How can the FCC not recognize that newspapers are in difficult economic times, and some degree of consolidation may well help these economics?  Does the FCC recognize that the media landscape in broadcasting has changed dramatically in the last few years?
Continue Reading TV Shared Service and Joint Sales Agreements Back in the News – Is the FCC Poised to Act Soon, and To Also Reject Relaxation of Broadcast-Newspaper Cross-Ownership?

TV Shared Services Agreements have been one of the targets of public interest groups since the start of the current Quadrennial Review of the FCC’s multiple ownership rules (see our articles here, here, here and here).  Public interest groups, in their zeal to stop any media consolidation (including newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership – even if that prohibition ends up outliving the newspaper itself, see our article here), have seen Shared Services Agreements as end-arounds on the FCC’s in-market television ownership caps, even though such deals may be necessary to preserve competitive, quality TV stations in smaller television markets.  Certain cable operators have also opposed these combinations (sometimes called “sidecar” arrangements), fearing that they will give TV station operators more power in retransmission consent negotiations.  There has recently been a flurry of activity, leaving the status of these deals somewhat confused under the review of the new FCC Chairman.

Before Christmas, two transactions involving shared services agreements were approved over objections.  While these transactions were approved, there was a lengthy analysis of the SSAs involved  in the decision approving Gannett’s acquisition of Belo.  In that discussion, the Commission’s staff carefully reviewed the attributes of the SSAs proposed as part of the transaction, and found them within the precedent established in prior transactions.  This included making sure that the licensee of the station receiving the services retained at least 70% of the proceeds from the sales of advertising time on the station, and that the party providing services programmed no more than 15% of the time on the other station.  But, in a paragraph that many thought was just a statement that Commission always retains the right to review transactions that are consistent with precedent, the Commission stated:

That is why applicants and interested parties should not forget that our public interest mandate encompasses giving careful attention to the economic effects of, and incentives created by, a proposed transaction taken as a whole and its consistency with the Commission’s policies under the Act, including our policies in favor of competition, diversity, and localism

But was this simply a statement of the obvious, or did it mean more?
Continue Reading What’s Up With TV Shared Services Agreements?

The Supreme Court on Friday announced that is has decided to review the decision of a US Appeals Court in New York finding that the Aereo service of retransmitting over the Internet the signals of local television stations, without permission from or payment to those stations, was legal.  We wrote about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Aereo case here.  The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, which may signal that the case will be decided before the Court adjourns its term in June, was supported not only by the television stations who had sought to block the Aereo service and the program suppliers to those television stations (including many of the sports leagues), but also by Aereo itself.  As Aereo and its copycat service FilmOn X were being sued in every jurisdiction where they started to do business, the desire to get a quick and final resolution of the legality of their services is a natural one.  This is especially true as the Courts have been reaching different decisions, as demonstrated by the two cases decided only a month apart, one in Boston finding Aereo to be legal, and one in DC finding FilmOn X to be infringing on the copyrights of the TV stations who brought the lawsuit.  So what issues will the Supreme Court be deciding?

One newspaper editorial, from the Los Angeles Times, has suggested that this is a Betamax case for the 21st century.  The Betamax case, officially known as Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios, was the case that declared the VCR to be legal, and found that its original manufacturer, Sony, was not contributorily infringing on the copyrights held by Universal and other studios that brought the case.  But that comparison really does not hold up, as the Betamax decision was premised on several findings that simply cannot be made here.  First, the Court in the Betamax case found that the VCR was not in and of itself an infringing service, as it had substantial legal uses.  In fact, there was testimony in the record that many copyright holders actually were not opposed to the use of a Betamax to copy their programs for time shifting and other purposes.  In the Aereo cases, copyright holders are for the most part universally opposed to the service and, other than retransmitting copyrighted programs without consent, there does not appear to be another use for the service.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Decides to Review Aereo – Why This is Not the New Betamax Case

It is the beginning of another year – and a time to look ahead to look ahead at what broadcasters should expect from Washington in the coming year.  With so many issues on the table, we’ll divide the issues into two parts – talking about FCC issues today, and issues from Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Washington’s alphabet soup of regulatory agencies in the near future.  In addition, watch these pages for our calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters in the next few days.

Each January, we publish a list of issues for the coming year, and it is not always the case that these issues make it to the top of various piles (literal or figurative) that sit in various offices at the FCC.  As set forth below, there are a number of FCC proceedings that remain open, and could be resolved this year.  But just as often, a good number of these issues sit unresolved to be included, once again, on our list of issues for next year.  While some issues are almost guaranteed to be considered, others are a crap shoot as to whether they will in fact bubble up to the top of the FCC’s long list of pending items. So this list should not be seen as a definitive list of what will be considered by the FCC this year, but instead as an alert as to what might be coming your way this year. Issues unique to radio and TV, and those that could affect the broadcast industry generally, are addressed below.
Continue Reading What’s Up in Washington For Broadcasters in 2014? — Part 1, FCC Issues

Closed captioning of video programming repurposed to the Internet has been an obligation of television stations for over a year.  Thus far, most stations have been able to comply with the requirements – as those requirements have only applied to full programs that were captioned when broadcast over the air, and then carried over to the Internet, either in whole or in segments that comprise essentially all of the program.  Now, the FCC is asking if any program excerpt should be captioned when transmitted over the Internet.  In a Public Notice released this week, the FCC asked whether the obligation to caption television programming transmitted through IP technologies should be extended to clips of such programming as well.

In asking for comments, the FCC noted that, when Congress adopted the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, which gave the FCC authority to mandate Internet captioning of TV programs, Congress required only the captioning of full programs, but it said that the limitation to full programs was intended only “at this time,” suggesting that the FCC could extend the requirements to clips at some point in the future.  Thus, the Commission is asking if this is the time to look at an extension of the obligations.  In undertaking this examination, the FCC is posing numerous requests for information from interested parties.
Continue Reading Mandatory Captioning of IP Delivered Clips of TV Programs? The FCC Seeks Information About Extending Internet Video Captioning Obligations

While we were sidetracked by the government shutdown in posting reminders about regulatory deadlines for broadcasters during the last two months, it’s about time to put that behind us, and to resume our monthly practice. While everyone may be looking forward to the holidays, they need to remember that December does bring a number of regulatory obligations for broadcasters across the country.  For instance, license renewals are due on December 2 (as the 1st is a Sunday) for the following station groups: Commercial and Noncommercial Full-Power and Class A Television Stations, TV Translators, and LPTV Stations in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota; Commercial and Noncommercial AM and FM Radio Stations, FM Translators, and LPFM Stations in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Radio and television stations in all of those states, plus those in Alabama and Georgia, that have 5 or more full-time employees in their station employment groups, also have the obligation to complete their Annual EEO Public Inspection File Report, and to place that report into their public file (for TV stations, that would be their online pubic file).  The deadline for those reports to be complete and posted is December 1.  Radio stations in these states also need to post the most recent report on their websites, if they have a website. 
Continue Reading December Regulatory Deadlines For Broadcasters – Renewals, Ownership Reports, CALM Act, and TV Form 317

Last week brought a number of Washington developments that we’ll write about in more detail soon, including the FCC’s decision to relax the limitations on foreign ownership of broadcast stations.  But there were also a number of other actions that bear mention – including the decision released late Friday to extend the deadline for the filing of Biennial Ownership reports that are to be filed by all commercial broadcasters – including AM, FM, TV. LPTV and Class A TV station owners.  These more complicated versions of FCC Form 323 are filed every other year to assess diversity in the ownership of broadcast stations.  These reports were originally to be filed on November 1, but the filing date was extended to December 2 earlier this year (see our article here), due to the recognized complexity of the completion and electronic filing of these forms.  Now, after the FCC shutdown deprived broadcasters of several weeks’ preparation time in which the electronic forms were available for use, the deadline has been extended to December 20.  The FCC Public Notice warns filers to try to submit their reports before the deadline to avoid potential slowdowns in the electronic system due to an expected heavy volume of users as the deadline approaches.

In fact, the effect that heavy demands on FCC’s electronic filing system was made evident by the FCC’s last-minute decision to extend by one day the last day for filing LPFM applications.  That extended deadline passed on Friday, after being extended from the originally announced extended deadline (due to the government shutdown) of Thursday, because glitches in the FCC’s electronic filing system delayed last-minute filings before that Thursday deadline.  There has not yet been any announcement of the number of LPFM applications filed in the window, but many think that the number will rival if not exceed the thousands of applications filed in the 2003 FM translator window – applications that the FCC is still processing over 10 years after their filing.
Continue Reading Odds and Ends: Extension of Biennial Ownership Report Deadline, $110,000 Penalty for Indecency, Deadline for UHF Discount Comments, and Closing of the LPFM Window

Sometimes the FCC decisions come out in a flurry, often with little nuggets of importance in each one.  Rather than trying to write about each one, we’ll from time to time, just try to highlight those nuggets for your consideration.  At the end of last week, three decisions came out with just such nuggets – all dealing with different issues.  The first case involved the issue of divestiture trusts – trusts set up to hold broadcast assets when a buyer of broadcast properties, usually in connection with the acquisition of a broadcast group, needs to divest some stations so that the buyer remains in compliance with the multiple ownership rules (usually in radio where the attribution of LMAs and JSAs make impossible divestitures like those used in television, to parties with no connection to the buyer but operating with a Shared Services or Joint Sales agreement).  In the past, the FCC has not put any limit on how long the stations could remain in a divestiture trust, with some stations spending 5 or 6 years (or longer) in such trusts before they are finally sold.  This case involved an acquisition of a large number of radio stations by Townsquare Media from Cumulus.  Here, the Commission established a two year limit on period of time that the trust could hold the stations placed in its care.  Thus, the trustee needs to divest of those stations within that period.  We would not be surprised to see that limit imposed on any trusts created in the future – perhaps even on some longstanding trusts still in place when they are subject to renewal applications, where such trusts have been challenged from time to time.

In TV, often stations that cannot be owned by a broadcaster who is buying another station in the same market consistent with the multiple ownership rules are not sold through a trust, but instead they are sometime bought by an independent party who can support the station through some sort of Joint Sales or Shared Services Agreements with the buyer.  In one of those cases, the continuation of an existing Shared Services Agreement was challenged in connection with the sale of the brokering station held by Young Broadcasting to Media General.  The FCC again (as they have in many cases before, see for instance our article here), held that the sale was permissible and that the SSA could continue after the sale.  The brokering station did supply news to the brokered station, but it was under 15% of the program time, and thus not attributable.  The brokered station continued to have a financial incentive to operate the station successfully, keeping 70% of the cash flow of the station.  And the mere fact that the owner of the brokering station guaranteed the debt of the brokered station did not make that interest attributable to the broker.  Note, however, that the Commission did question the staffing of the brokered station but, as that station was not being transferred as part of the sale before the FCC, the Commission said that they would review that issue in connection with the license renewal of the brokered station.  Shared Service Agreements are also under consideration in the current Quadrennial review of the FCC’s multiple ownership rules (see our stories here and here ).  So some of these issues may be revisited again in the not too distant future, when the new FCC Chair decides to complete that review.
Continue Reading Odds and Ends – Divestiture Trusts, Shared Services Agreements and Determinations of Significantly Viewed Stations

There have been many Washington developments for broadcasters in the last week – and while it was all occurring, our Blog was undergoing a makeover, so some of the articles that we published in the last week may have been missed.  Perhaps the biggest news was the confirmation and swearing in of the new FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler.  Last week, we wrote this article setting out the many legal issues of relevance to broadcasters that will be facing the new Chair.  Among the first issues that will be dealt with is the modification of the FCC’s limits on the foreign ownership of broadcast stations, which is scheduled for consideration by the FCC at their open meeting next Thursday.  We wrote about the issues in that proceeding here.

One of the last issues considered by Acting Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn was the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the revitalization of the AM radio band.  We summarized the issues set out in that proceeding, and wrote in more detail about the proposal likely to have the biggest impact on AM broadcasters – a window for AM stations to seek FM translators.  That article also discussed how the FCC has seemingly decided to pull back from Mattoon waivers as part of that proceeding, and in a separate decision where the FCC decided that Mattoon waivers could not be used if the primary station is an FM.  We’ll write more about the rest of the AM revitalization proposals soon.  And, related to translators, we wrote about the extension of the last day for filing applications in the LPFM filing window to next week. 

As last week was Halloween, and also the 75th Anniversary of the broadcast of Orson Welles War of the Worlds, we wrote about the changing views on broadcast hoaxes, and what the FCC would do if the program was broadcast today.  Speaking of emergency broadcasts, the FCC yesterday issued a number of notices on fake emergency broadcasts.  We’ll write more about that issue shortly.
Continue Reading While Our Blog Was Getting A Makeover, Did You See Our Stories on the New FCC Chairman, Foreign Ownership of Broadcast Stations, AM Revitalization, Orson Welles and the Hoax Rule and More?

The FCC denied reconsideration on the last phase of the digital television transition – requiring that all LPTV stations and TV translators cease analog operations and be operating digitally by September 1, 2015. See our summary of the original ruling on the digital conversion of LPTV and TV translator stations here. In denying reconsideration, the FCC determined that the September 1, 2015 date will hold – denying requests that the final decision be postponed while the FCC considers the repacking of the television band as part of the incentive auction process to clear part of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband purposes. The FCC also noted that some parties wanted to keep operating in an analog mode on TV channel 6, as the audio can be received by FM receivers (so-called "Franken FMs"). The Commission determined that using Channel 6 to provide an audio service this was not a sufficient reason to keep analog operations on TV channels alive past the deadline that they have established. (See our articles about these hybrid LPTV/FM stations, which take advantage of the fact that Channel 6 is adjacent to the FM band and that analog TV used an FM audio system, here).

The Commission did note that, in response to some petitions for reconsideration, that any LPTV station or translator moving to Channel 6 for digital operations be required to protect noncommercial FM stations that would be operating on adjacent frequencies. While the Commission does not expect that such interference will occur frequently, they made clear that LPTV and TV translators are secondary services, and they cannot continue to operate if they cause interference to primary services, including primary noncommercial FM stations.Continue Reading No Relief on LPTV/TV Translator Digital Conversion Deadline – 2015 Deadline for End of Analog Operations Upheld on Reconsideration