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

In a Consent Decree released the day after Thanksgiving, the FCC agreed to accept a payment of a $35,000 penalty from a former television licensee for recording two telephone conversations for inclusion in a newscast, where the station called an outside party and recorded those conversations for inclusion in the newscast – before getting permission to do the recording.  The licensee also apparently did not fully respond to FCC inquiries about the facts of the case, leading to the $35,000 fine.  The FCC noted that the licensee had already sold the station, and was holding this money in a post-closing escrow account to be used to satisfy any fines that might arise from this conduct.

The decision is significant for several reasons.  First, it is couched in terms of privacy regulation, with a discussion of the importance of privacy regulation to the FCC in the opening paragraph (see the Public Notice that accompanied the release of the Consent Decree).  Recently, the FCC issued huge fines to independent telephone companies for not properly securing customer information – indicating a new emphasis on privacy regulation by the FCC.  Couching Friday’s consent decree in those terms indicates that privacy issues are now a high priority for the FCC.  As we have written before, privacy is a subject of interest to many other government agencies, and the recent interest of the FCC in this issue promises one more place where businesses can look for trouble should they respect the privacy of those with whom they interact, or should they not secure private information about their customers.
Continue Reading $35,000 FCC Fine for TV Station that Tapes Telephone Conversations for News Broadcast Without Prior Permission

While we are in the Holiday season, the regulatory obligations faced by broadcasters don’t stop.  December brings a continuation of the TV renewal cycle, though we are nearing the end of that cycle.  Renewal applications for all TV, Class A and LPTV stations in the following states are due on December 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  These stations need to file their first two post-filing license renewal announcements on the first and 16th of the month.  Stations that filed their license renewal applications in October also will be broadcasting their post-filing announcements on those same days (their last two announcements).  Those would be stations in the following states and territories: Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, and Saipan.  TV stations in the states that file license renewals on February 1 (those in New York and New Jersey) have to start running their pre-filing announcements on the December 1 (and run a second on December 16).

There are other routine filings due in December.  On December 1, Commercial and Noncommercial Full-Power and Class A Television Stations and AM and FM Radio Stations with employment units with 5 or more full-time employees in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont all need to complete their EEO Public File Report and place that report in their public file (and on their websites, if they have one).  Noncommercial stations still have obligations to file Biennial Ownership Reports on every other anniversary of the filing of their license renewal applications.  That means that these reports are due on December 1 for Noncommercial Television Stations in Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; and on the same day for Noncommercial AM and FM Radio Stations in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Continue Reading December Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Renewals, EEO Reports and Noncommercial Biennial Ownership Reports in Some States; TV Ancillary and Supplementary Revenue Reports; As Well as LPTV Rulemaking Comments and Many Other Expected Actions

The FCC yesterday issued an order declining to allow experimentation with the noncommercial underwriting rules that was requested by the licensee of noncommercial radio stations in the Phoenix area.  The licensee had asked the FCC for permission to conduct a three year experiment by relaxing the underwriting rules in certain ways to determine the effect such a relaxation would have on its ability to raise revenue, and the impact on the listening and support that the station currently enjoys.  In denying the station experimental authority to conduct the test, the FCC determined that it lacked the authority to authorize it, as the relaxation that the license was seeking would be prohibited not only by FCC rules, but also by statute, and the FCC cannot waive or grant an exception to a statutory provision (unless specifically permitted by the statute). 

The underwriting rules prohibit noncommercial stations from running advertising for commercial entities.  These rules have been relaxed somewhat over the last 30 years to allow for “enhanced underwriting” announcements, which allow noncommercial stations to identify their sponsors, and provide limited information about the products and services of those sponsors.  But the information cannot be promotional in nature.  Specifically, there are a number of limitations put on these announcements.  Some of these limitations include: (1) the announcements cannot contain “calls to action” – statements that suggest that listeners buy from the sponsor or patronize their place of business; (2) the announcements cannot have qualitative claims – so noncommercial stations cannot say that their sponsor was voted the “best car repair shop in the city by City Magazine,” even if that statement of fact is true; and (3) the announcement cannot provide price or other information relevant to a buying decision, e.g. where tickets are sold, interest rates, etc.  For more information about these rules, see some of our previous articles on this topic here, here, here and here, as well as a presentation on that issue that is discussed here.  What did this licensee seek to change in its experiment?
Continue Reading FCC Declines to Allow Experimentation with Noncommercial Underwriting Rules

The FCC on Friday proposed to amend its rules governing contests conducted by broadcast stations by allowing the required disclosure of the material terms of the contest on the Internet, as an option for broadcasters in lieu of the current requirement that these disclosures be made by broadcasting them on-the-air a reasonable number of times.  But the proposed rule change is not as simple as one would think, with the FCC asking about whether a number of specific obligations should be attached to any online disclosures, even potentially adding the requirement that the full URL for the online disclosure be made every time a contest is mentioned on the air, not simply a reasonable number of times as required under the current rules.  So just what is the FCC proposing, and what is the big issue here?

The rule governing the conduct of broadcaster’s contests, Section 73.1216, covers contests conducted by broadcasters over-the-air.  It does not cover contests by broadcasters that are exclusively conducted online (though, as we wrote here, if the contest is announced on the air, even if primarily conducted online, all the required on-air disclosures apply).  It does not cover contests conducted by third-parties that are broadcast on the air (so contests conducted by an advertiser are not covered by this rule).  The current rule, in addition to requiring that the contest be conducted fairly and in accordance with the rules adopted for the contest, requires that the “material rules” be broadcast on the air on a regular basis so that listeners know what they might win, how to play the contest, and how the winner is selected.  It is this requirement, that the material rules be broadcast on the station, that has led to problems in the past, and thus prompted the proposed changes advanced on Friday.
Continue Reading FCC Proposes To Amend Rules Governing Broadcast Contests – Suggests Allowing Disclosure of Material Terms of the Contest on the Internet

On Friday, the US District Court in the Southern District of NY found that there is a public performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings in that state, following two decisions from California finding a similar right under California law (though on different grounds).  Like the first decision in California (about which we wrote here), this decision was the result of a law suit by Flo and Eddie of the Turtles against Sirius XM, arguing that Sirius XM was infringing on their rights by playing old Turtles songs without paying the duo (who now own the Turtles’ copyrights) any compensation.  Unlike the California decision which looked to specific language in the California statute about ownership of pre-1972 sound recordings, the NY Court reaches a decision in some ways broader than the California decision, but potentially also in some ways narrower.  What does it mean for the many businesses that play such recordings?

There is no public performance right in sound recordings generally in the United States, with the limited exception of the public performance of such recordings in a digital medium.  Sound recordings had not been covered by Federal copyright law at all until 1972, when they were covered for purposes of protecting reproductions and distributions and other general rights, but Federal law specifically did not include this public performance right in sound recordings until the 1990s.  When sound recordings were added to Federal law in 1972, the regulation of pre-1972 sound recordings was specifically left to state regulation (where it had been prior to Federalization).  The limited digital performance right was adopted in a series of laws enacted in the late 1990s, as fears of digital piracy based on Internet and other digital transmissions grew.  So webcasters, satellite radio, digital cable radio and other digital users of sound recordings have paid a royalty for the performance of such recordings.  That royalty is set by the Copyright Royalty Board (see our article here about the most recent CRB proceeding to set rates), paid by noninteractive services to SoundExchange, and distributed by SoundExchange to copyright holders and artists. For interactive services (like Spotify or iTunes or Rhapsody), the performance rights have to be directly negotiated with the copyright holder, leading to disputes like the recent decision of Taylor Swift to pull her new album from Spotify (see our article here about the difference between interactive and noninteractive services).  As the 1990s adoption of the limited public performance right in sound recordings was a Federal act, most observers believed that there was no public performance right in sound recordings for pre-1972 recordings, as there never had been one prior to Federalization (despite many attempts by artists and labels to have one included in the law)(see our article here when the Flo and Eddie suit was first filed). 
Continue Reading New York Court Finds Public Performance Right in Pre-1972 Sound Recordings – How Will This Affect Businesses that Use Music?

Even though the election is over, political broadcasting issues have not stopped.  Yesterday, the same groups (the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, and the Sunlight Foundation) that had previously objected to the sponsorship identification of issue ads funded by PACs with a limited donor base have struck again.  This time, they have filed a complaint with the FCC against a Chicago TV station claiming that it should have identified former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg as the true sponsor of an ad run by a PAC. That PAC stated on its website that it had been formed by the former mayor and, from its FEC filings, it appears that it was 100% funded by Mr. Bloomberg.

The complaint differs from complaints filed earlier this year about similar ads in that, in this case, the station was given written notice by the Petitioner of the claim that the sponsorship identification should have included Mr. Bloomberg.  In previous cases, no such notice had been given to the station (the lack of such prior notice resulting in the FCC’s rejection of the initial set of complaints filed by this group, see our article here).  In addition, this is the first complaint where it appears that the PAC in question was 100% funded by a single individual.  See, for instance, our article here, where we asked in connection with previous complaints where the PACs in question were not 100% funded by a single individual how a station was supposed to know at what point the individual donor needed to be identified, and when there were a sufficient number of other donors that the identification of the groups as the true sponsor was proper.  Will these factual differences mandate a different result from the FCC?
Continue Reading The Election is Over, But the Complaints Keep Coming – Should Michael Bloomberg Have Been Identified as the True Sponsor of an Ad Run by his PAC?

Noncommercial webcasters are often forgotten in the discussion of the current proceeding to set Internet radio sound recording royalties. But, along with the royalties for commercial webcasters (we wrote about the proposed commercial rates here), the current Copyright Royalty Board proceeding will also set the rates for noncommercial webcasters.  Various proposals for noncommercial royalties have been submitted to the Judges.  In fact, one proposed settlement agreement between SoundExchange and CBI (a group that represents college radio stations) has been submitted to the Judges, and last week that proposed settlement was published in the Federal Register, with a request for comments by November 26.  There are other proposals for noncommercial rates that were submitted by other parties, and we talk about those below. 

Setting rates for noncommercial webcasters is not easy.  Colleges and other schools, public radio and religious organizations usually are not motivated by the kinds of commercial considerations that give rise to evidence submitted under the “willing buyer willing seller” standard applicable to all CRB webcasting royalty decisions.  Thus, the noncommercial rates are often set as an afterthought.  In fact, perhaps because noncommercial rates have been such an afterthought, it has been these rates that have led to the greatest number of appellate issues for the CRB.  The decision on noncommercial rates from the 2006 proceeding was just issued by the Judges after an appellate court remand.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision from the 2006 case setting the minimum fee for noncommercial broadcasters at $500 for the 2006-2010 proceeding – a decision reached after a remand of the case from the Court of Appeals to the Board following an appeal by IBS, another group of noncommercial broadcasters associated with colleges and other schools.  But let’s look at the proposals for the upcoming case, and compare them to the rates currently in effect.
Continue Reading Noncommercial Webcasters Royalty Rate Proposals for 2016-2020

Since our note Friday about November regulatory dates for broadcasters, it’s become clear that the FCC will be acting on two more matters of interest to broadcasters – particularly radio broadcasters though each have some implications for TV as well.  First, as we hinted at the end of our article on Friday (the rumors that we had heard having now been confirmed), Chairman Wheeler has circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the expansion of the online public file to radio (as well as cable and satellite).  And, secondly, the FCC has announced that, at its open meeting on November 21, it will open a rulemaking to modernize the disclosure rules for on-air contests conducted by broadcasters – rules which have resulted in FCC fines over the last few years.

The fact that the online public file proposal for radio has now matured into a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is confirmed by the FCC’s list of Items on Circulation (basically, draft orders that the Commissioners currently have in front of them for review and voting), which now lists that item near the top of its list.  See the list of Items on Circulation, here: http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-items-circulation.  While most folks in radio knew that the day would come when their public files might be required to go online, the speed with which the FCC now seems to be acting is what is most surprising, as it was only a bit over two months ago that the FCC took comments on whether or not to even consider that proposal (see our article here).  But, with lightning speed, the order appears to be moving forward.  How fast will it be implemented?
Continue Reading Formal Proceedings to Begin to Revise Rules for Broadcasters’ On-Air Contests and Expand the Online Public File Obligations to Radio, Cable and Satellite

The month of November is one of those rare months on the FCC calendar when there are few routine regulatory filing deadlines for broadcasters.  In odd years, we would have Biennial Ownership Reports but, being an even year, we can wait until 2015 for that obligation for commercial broadcasters.  There is a new November 28 deadline, about which we wrote here, for TV stations with Joint Sales Agreements with other stations in their markets to file such agreements with the FCC.  While we are getting to the end of the current license renewal cycle, there are still some obligations of television stations for the airing of renewal pre or post filing announcements.  Commercial and Noncommercial Full-Power and Class A Television Stations in Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, and Saipan need to air License Renewal Post-Filing Announcements on the first and sixteenth of the month, while television stations in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont need to air their pre-filing announcements in anticipation of the filing of their license renewal applications on December 1. 

November brings a few other dates of note for broadcasters.  With the end of the political window for lowest unit rates on Election Day, broadcasters have a few last minute issues to remember.  If they sell ads on Election Day, those ads must be sold at lowest unit rates.  If they have opened their stations to take new advertising or changes in copy for any commercial client in the past year, they must be ready to take similar steps for federal candidates over this last weekend before the election.  Even if they never accommodate a commercial advertiser over the weekend, they may still need to provide weekend access to accommodate last minute equal opportunities requests. 
Continue Reading November Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – The End of the Political Window, Incentive Auction and Online Video Clip Comments and More

The FCC announced two significant policy initiatives by Blog post in the last week – perhaps recognizing that the Internet provides a better way of packaging a message about policy directions than an unpredictable news conference.  The two decisions announced this week by Blog post were (1) the Chairman announcing that he has directed that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking be circulated among the other Commissioners to treat Over-the-Top TV providers (“OTT” providers, usually those that provide service over the Internet) of linear programming as MVPDs – meaning that they would be treated, for regulatory purposes, in much the same way as cable and satellite TV services, and (2) an announcement by the head of the incentive auction task force that the auction by which some of the broadcast TV spectrum will be purchased from TV users and resold to wireless carriers for broadband wireless uses will be postponed from its expected date in the summer of 2015 until early 2016.  We will write about the postponement of the auction later.  But what does the MVPD proposal mean?

The MVPD issue is one that we last wrote about here.  At the urging of some OTT providers, apparently including Aereo, the FCC has been urged to treat these providers, when they provide “linear” programming (programming that is provided at set times on a set schedule, in the manner of broadcast TV or cable programming, as opposed to the on-demand programming of a Netflix or Hulu), in the same fashion as cable and satellite.  The Chairman, in his blog post, announces his support for an FCC proceeding to review that proposal, apparently looking to use linear Internet programmers as a new competitive force against cable and satellite TV.  By treating these services as MVPDs, they could get access to over-the-air TV programming (if they can negotiate retransmission consent agreements with the TV stations) and equal access to programming provided by vertically integrated cable programmers (those programmers that have attributable ownership from cable system operators).  But, obviously, there are some big “ifs” here.
Continue Reading FCC Policy by Blog Post – Over-the-Top Internet-Delivered Television Programming Providers May be Treated as MVPDs, a Reaction to Aereo?