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

Earlier this year, the FCC eliminated the requirement that broadcasters maintain, in their public inspection files, copies of letters from the public about station operations (see our article summarizing that action here). One aspect of that rule change did not become immediately effective, as it was subject to review by the Office of Management…

Summer is coming to an end, but the legal obligations never take a vacation, and September brings another list of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters. While the month is one of those without the usual list of EEO Public File obligations or quarterly FCC filing obligations, there still are a number of other regulatory deadlines for which broadcasters need to be prepared.

For commercial broadcasters, the September date that should be on everyone’s mind is the deadline for the payment of annual regulatory fees. As we wrote here, there is an FCC order circulating among the Commissioners that should be released any day, setting the amounts of the regulatory fees and the deadline for their payment. These fees will almost certainly be due in September, prior to the start of the government’s fiscal year on October 1. So stay alert for the announcement of the window for paying these “reg fees.”
Continue Reading September Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Including Reg Fees, Nationwide EAS Test, Must-Carry Letters, Lowest Unit Rate, Translator and Repack Deadlines and GMR License Extension

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

Last week, I participated in a discussion about music royalties for broadcasters at the Texas Association of Broadcasters Annual Convention in Austin. Speaking on the panel with me were the heads of the Radio Music License Committee and the TV Music Licensing Committee. These are the organizations that represent most commercial broadcasters in their negotiations with ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for public performance licenses for “musical works” or “musical compositions” – the underlying words and music to any song. In our discussion, there was a general summary of the licenses needed for the use of music by broadcasters, a summary of the status of some of the current royalty negotiations, and questions about other issues in music licensing. As this discussion raised a number of issues that I have covered in articles posted on this blog, I thought that it might be worth highlighting some of that past coverage so that those interested in any topic can read a bit more on these subjects.

The TV industry seems to have far fewer issues than radio, perhaps because radio is so much more music-dependent. While there is music in many TV programs, some of it is cleared (i.e. licenses have been negotiated) by the program providers (including some networks), so that stations need only worry about licenses for programming where the music has not been pre-cleared. Thus, TV stations have alternatives of blanket licenses for all programming (principally used by affiliates of networks where music has not been pre-cleared) or per-program fees where stations pay for music only in programs or program segments where music has not been licensed by the program suppliers.
Continue Reading Looking at Music Royalty Issues for Radio and TV Broadcasters

It has been over two years since the last window allowing applicants to file for new FM stations (see our article here). There had been some speculation that the number of requests for new allotments was decreasing, leaving the FCC with few FM channels to auction off and thereby breaking what had been an almost yearly start of a new FCC auction for new FM channels. But, yesterday, the FCC released an Order noting numerous vacant FM channels, though this time they are not newly allotted channels, but instead ones that had previously been awarded to applicants who either did not pay the amount they bid in the auction, or who received a CP and then did not construct the station. Even included on this list is the FM channel of the station that had its license designated for hearing as the station had been silent for almost its entire renewal term (see our article here), a hearing that never had to happen as the licensee surrendered its license rather than trying to litigate over whether its renewal should be granted.

Of course, many of these channels may have some inherent issues leading those who initially sought them not to construct. The issues could be location specific (e.g. no readily available transmitter sites for a price that made construction feasible) or there could be issues with the applicant not being able to fulfill its initial plans. Interested parties should do their investigation. When will the channels be available?
Continue Reading Looking for a New FM? – FCC Releases a Potential “Shopping List” of Channels that Will Be Available in a Future Auction

Global Music Rights, commonly known as GMR, is the newest Performing Rights Organization (PRO) in the US music business, licensing public performance rights to musical compositions of songwriters as diverse as various members of the Eagles to Pharrell Williams to George Gershwin. As we wrote here, in December, they offered a temporary license to the radio industry to allow radio stations to play their music if the stations pay a royalty reportedly based on a percentage of what stations pay to ASCAP and BMI. That license, which was accepted by many radio stations, expires at the end of September. Many stations were concerned as to what would happen on October 1, and whether they could continue to play GMR music. This week, that question was answered when it was announced that GMR has offered to extend the license for another 6 months at the same rates stations are now paying.

While this extension may answer the question of what happens on October 1, it certainly does not resolve all GMR issues. It seems pretty clear that, unless there is a major breakthrough, GMR and the Radio Music License Committee (the organization that negotiates performance royalties for commercial radio operators) will not come to an agreement on rates before the end of September. As we wrote here, RMLC has sued GMR, asking that a court make them subject to an antitrust consent decree much like SESAC where rates, if they cannot be voluntarily negotiated, would be set through arbitration (see our article on the results of the recent RMLC-SESAC arbitration here). GMR has countersued (see our article here), and litigation continues as it may well for years absent a settlement.
Continue Reading GMR Offers Commercial Radio 6 Month Extension of Interim License to Play Their Songs

Since the beginning of the year, the FCC has been acting with fewer than its full complement of Commissioners. Since the January departures of Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Rosenworcel, the Commission has had three Commissioners – two Republicans (Chairman Pai and Commissioner O’Rielly) and one Democrat (Commissioner Clyburn). Last week, Congress confirmed the nominations of Democratic Commissioner Rosenworcel for her return to the FCC, as well as new Commissioner Brendan Carr, a Republican. With these two expected to be sworn in in the very near future, it will complete the full house of three Republicans and two Democrats. With the background of the new Commissioners, and the 3-2 Republican majority, is this a winning hand?

With this make-up of the FCC, the Commission will likely continue to proceed in the deregulatory fashion that we have seen so far this year.   Commissioner Rosenworcel is a known quantity, having served on the FCC for several years before her term ran out in January. While a Democrat, during her initial term as a Commissioner, her views reportedly departed from those of Chairman Wheeler in a few instances , modifying the outcome of some of his initiatives. New Commissioner Carr has been serving as the FCC’s General Counsel under Chairman Pai, and had previously worked as a legal advisor in Pai’s office. While his legal background has primarily been in non-broadcast areas, as General Counsel, his office was involved in several significant broadcast actions, including the recent defense of the reinstatement of the UHF discount against attempts by certain public interest groups to have the Court of Appeals impose a stay the effective date of the Commission’s action (see our article here). Of course, these positions are not necessarily indicative of his stances when he is acting as an independent Commissioner instead of acting in a role that was subject to the direction of the Commissioners. Only time will tell for sure how the new fully-staffed Commission will interact with each other, but the bets are that the general direction will not be changing.
Continue Reading A Full House at the FCC as Two “New” Commissioners Confirmed