Photo of David Oxenford

David Oxenford

Subscribe to David Oxenford's Posts

David Oxenford represents broadcasting and digital media companies in connection with regulatory, transactional and intellectual property issues. He has represented broadcasters and webcasters before the Federal Communications Commission, the Copyright Royalty Board, courts and other government agencies for over 30 years.

Follow:Read more about David OxenfordDavid's Linkedin ProfileDavid's Twitter Profile

As we have noted, a proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to set the rates to be paid to SoundExchange for the public performance of music by a non-interactive commercial webcasting service for 2026-2030 started last year, and is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2025.  SoundExchange and one of the major webcasting parties remaining in the case, the NAB, this week filed with the Copyright Royalty Board a proposed settlement of the current litigation over the royalty rates to be paid to performers and copyright holders (usually the record companies).  These are the royalties that commercial broadcasters pay to SoundExchange for streaming music online, including through mobile apps and to smart speakers.  The current rate is $.0025 per Performance (a performance is every time a song is heard by one listener – so, for example, if a station has 10 listeners during an hour and they each hear 10 songs, that is 100 Performances).  And, under the settlement, the rates will be going up, effective January 1, 2026.

The rates proposed in the settlement are as follows:

2026: $0.0028 per Performance;

2027: $0.0029 per Performance;

2028: $0.0030 per Performance;

2029: $0.0031 per Performance; and

2030: $0.0032 per Performance

The CRB case is currently set to go to trial on April 28, a week’s extension having just been granted, perhaps because of this week’s resignation of the Chief Judge of the CRB and the appointment of an interim judge (that announcement is on the CRB’s homepage).  The NAB had been advocating for substantially lower rates for broadcast simulcasts given their total lack of interactivity.  The argument is that simulcast streams, which simply rebroadcast the programming of a commercial broadcast station and are not influenced by “likes” or a user’s favorite songs or artists, should be charged less than those offered by services that allow some degree of user customization, tailoring the stream provided to the user based on their preferences, while still remaining a noninteractive service (see our articles here and here on the difference between noninteractive streams that pay SoundExchange at the rates set by the CRB and those offered by interactive services that must negotiate agreements with the record companies to play their songs).  See our article here on the Court decision upholding the 2021-2025 royalties which rejected a similar argument by the NAB. By settling, it appears that the NAB opted for certainty in establishing rates modestly higher in each of the next five years rather than incurring the substantial cost of litigating over what the rates should be and the uncertainty that comes with any litigation – as SoundExchange was asking for rates substantially higher than those set out in the settlement. Continue Reading Settlement Between NAB and SoundExchange on Webcasting Royalty Rates for 2026-2030 – Rates are Going Up for Broadcast Simulcasts

The NAB last week submitted a letter asking the FCC to quickly repeal the 39% cap on national ownership of television stations.  This cap precludes the ownership by one company or individual of an attributable interest in television stations capable of reaching more than 39% of the television households in the United States.  The rule has been in place since 2004.  When adopted, over-the-air television was still analog, so the cap included a UHF discount as, at the time, UHF stations were deemed inferior to those that transmitted on VHF channels.  While the transition to digital reversed that relationship as UHF is now seen as preferable, the discount remains, counting UHF stations as reaching only half the households reached by VHF stations.  So, were an owner to have exclusively UHF stations, it could theoretically own stations reaching 78% of TV households.

Yet even 78% is not 100%, and any cable or satellite channel, or even any broadcast program provider like a network or syndicator, and any online video provider, has no limit to the number of households that it can be theoretically reach.  The NAB argues that this is fundamentally unfair and impedes competition in today’s video marketplace.  While some might argue that most of these other services are not free, requiring a subscription to an MVPD or a connection to the internet, practically speaking, in today’s world, many of these competitive channels have as much practical reach as do local broadcast TV stations.  Only the delivery method is different.Continue Reading NAB Requests the End of the 39% Cap on Nationwide Television Station Ownership – Looking at the Issues

A few weeks ago, FCC Chairman Carr announced the beginning of the “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding at the FCC – looking at “alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the companies that it regulates, across all industries, to unleash companies to innovate, invest, and expand.  Comments are due April 11 and replies April 28.  With less than a week to go before comments are filed in this latest attempt to lessen the regulatory burden on broadcasters, we thought that we would look at some of the issues that may come up in this proceeding, and some of the policies that stubbornly remain on the books but should be addressed.

Broadcasters are expected to advance many ideas.  But, before considering some of the issues likely to be addressed, it is important to put this proceeding in context.  This is not the first time broadcasters have been asked to engage in this kind of exercise.  In the 1980s, the FCC conducted multiple proceedings to address the “regulatory underbrush,” eliminating, among other things, rules that had required specific amounts of news and public affairs programming on every station, rules mandating a specific number of PSAs, rules requiring specific program and engineering logs as official records for every station, and policies restricting advertising for certain perceived vices like parimutuel betting and fortune tellers.  In the 1990s, as a result of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, other obligations were changed (including the adoption of the current local radio ownership rules, the abolition of the ability of any party to file a competing application contending that it should get the right to operate a broadcast station every time a license renewal was filed, and extending the license renewal term from three to eight years (see our article on some of those changes, here).  Just eight years ago, FCC Chairman Pai initiated the Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative (see our article here).  That proceeding resulted in the abolition or streamlining of many FCC rules, such as the main studio rule (see our articles  here and here), some children’s television rules (see our posts here and here), and rules prohibiting same-service radio program duplication by commonly owned stations, although the prohibition on FM/FM duplication by commonly owned stations serving the same area was reinstated by the last administration, though that action remains subject to a reconsideration petition (see our articles here, here, here, and here on some of the other changes brought about by Chairman Pai’s initiative).  However, there were many other obligations left unaddressed.  There are so many rules applicable to broadcasters, and so many competitive changes in the market have  impacted the relevance of many of those rules, that no proceeding ever seems to address every issue it should.  But we expect that many rules will be addressed in this “Delete” proceeding. Continue Reading Less Than a Week to Go Before “Delete, Delete, Delete” Proposals on Eliminating Unnecessary FCC Regulations Are Due – What Should Be Included?

April brings a number of routine regulatory dates for broadcasters across the country, including the requirement for posting Quarterly Issues Programs Lists to full-power station’s online public inspection files.  April also brings comment deadlines in several rulemaking proceedings including one in which many broadcasters are interested – the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding looking to eliminate unnecessary broadcast regulations.  Finally, we note lowest unit rate windows that open this month, including one for primaries in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, one of the more significant “off-year” elections in 2025.  We look in more detail at some of the most significant deadlines below. 

April 1 is the deadline for radio and television station employment units in Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas with five or more full-time employees to upload their Annual EEO Public File Report to their stations’ Online Public Inspection Files.  A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area having at least one common employee.  For employment units with five or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.  A link to the uploaded report must also be included on the home page of each station’s website, if the station has a website.  Be timely getting these reports into your station’s OPIF, as even a single late report has in the past led to FCC fines (see our article here about a recent $26,000 fine for a single late EEO report).Continue Reading April 2025 Regulatory Updates for Broadcasters – Annual EEO Public File Reports, Comment Deadlines, Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Political Windows, and more

  • The National Association of Broadcasters filed a Petition for Rulemaking asking the FCC to require that full-power television stations complete
…