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

Two big fines for the broadcast of telephone conversations without first getting consent of the person at the other end of the phone were released by the FCC today, and each raises a number of interesting issues. Section 73.1206 of the FCC’s rules prohibits the broadcast, or recording for purposes of broadcast, of telephone calls without first getting the consent of the person on the other end of the phone. In the first case released this week, a broadcaster was fined $25,000 for the broadcast of two phone calls on two commonly-owned stations. In the second case, the same broadcaster was fined $16,000 for a violation of the rule at a different station. These cases are very interesting in that they address and reject many defenses to the fines that were raised by the broadcaster.

The $25,000 fine came in the follow up to a Notice of Apparent Liability which we wrote about here. In this case, a station was accused of airing two calls in a program called “You Fell For It.” A complaint alleged that the station called individuals and put them on the air without notice. The licensee first attempted to defend against the claim on the grounds that the person who complained was not one of the people who was called and put on the air without consent. The FCC found that this was not necessary – any listener to the station could complain about a violation of the rules. The FCC found that this rule is not one where the only complaint can come from the individual harmed by being put on the air – though the FCC does not present any policy basis of why the rule should be enforced if the individuals who are apparently being protected (individuals who want to preserve their privacy by not going on the air) do not complain about the station’s conduct.Continue Reading FCC Fines of $25,000 and $16,000 for Airing Phone Calls Without Prior Consent

Having broadcast all of the material rules of a station’s contest was not enough to avoid a $10,000 fine for having misleading rules – when there were errors in the contest deadlines posted on a station’s website and in emails sent to contest participants. In an FCC Notice of Apparent Liability proposing a fine for a North Carolina FM station, the Commission also upped the fine from the usual $4000 base fine for a contest violation to $10,000, because the corporate parent of the licensee had been hit with two other fines for contest violations (one in 2009 and one almost two decades ago, in 1994) and as the company had very significant revenues in the past year.

The contest was called “Carolina Cuties”, where contestants posted pictures of their babies on the station’s website, the winning picture to be selected by a vote of station listeners.   The station’s on-air announcements properly stated that the voting could continue through September 5 of last year, with the winner announced on September 6. But, on the website, during a week at the end of August, it was stated that the winner would be selected on September 4.  This was later updated to say that the voting deadline was September 4, but correctly stating that the prize would be awarded on the 6th.   An email to contestants also used the September 4 voting deadline date. Votes were in fact taken through September 5, as announced on the air. Nevertheless, as the website and emails stated that the voting deadline was September 4, the Commission determined that the station contest was not conducted “substantially as announced or advertised,” and proposed to levy the fine.Continue Reading $10,000 FCC Fine for Failure to Follow Contest Rules – On-Air Rules Were Right, But Online Rules Were Wrong

 The Online Public File for television stations is now a reality. While appeals of the imposition of the rules remain pending, both the FCC and the US Court of Appeals denied stays of the August 2 effective date for the new requirements, so full-power and Class A television stations should now be complying with the new obligations to maintain their public files online. The Online Public File is hosted by the FCC, and uses the FCC’s newly created system for uploading, storing and accessing the documents. So far, the system seems to be functioning with a minimum of problems, though one or two glitches have been reported here and there.

Documents that stations file with the FCC are supposed to be uploaded to the Online Public File automatically by the FCC, so individual stations do not need to worry about importing them into the new system. We have heard that this may not have occurred in every instance, so stations should check their files to be sure that the proper uploading has in fact occurred. Other documents will need to be uploaded by the stations themselves, and stations will also be responsible for maintaining and monitoring the file, and deleting documents when their retention is no longer required.

Just what are the requirements for the new online public file? The FCC has put out its own Frequently Asked Questions, available here. There are many other questions that will no doubt arise over time.  We have tried to do our own summary of the obligations as we know them in the answers to common questions that we are getting about the obligations under the new rules.  Those questions and answers are set out below.Continue Reading Questions and Answers About the TV Online Public Inspection File

FCC Annual Regulatory Fees are due to be submitted to the FCC by 11:59 PM on September 13, 2012, according to a series of public notices issued by the FCC.  The FCC’s Public Notice providing the instructions for broadcaster’s fees is available here. As set forth in that notice, the Commission will no longer be mailing a reminder to broadcasters about these fees, so stations need to remember their obligations on their own.  The FCC’s website, www.fccfees.com , will provide information about the fee filing process and the amounts that stations owe.  The amount of the obligations are based on the class of the station and the population within the station’s coverage area. 

Fees are computed as of October 1, 2011, the start of the FCC’s last fiscal year.  For stations that have in the last year received upgraded their facilities, or built out new construction permits for new stations, the fees are still paid based on the status of the station as of October 1, 2011.  Stations pay fees not only for their main licenses, but also for boosters, translators and auxiliary stations (e.g. STLs).  Parties who have financial hardship or other reasons that they cannot pay the fees can ask for a waiver.  Another public notice sets out the standards for a waiver showing. Continue Reading FCC Sets Deadline for Annual Regulatory Fees – September 13, 2012

About 6 years ago, I started the Broadcast Law Blog, with a colleague now at the FCC, while at the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.  I want to thank that firm for the support that they gave to me and the Blog, which has allowed its readership to grow to heights that I…

Since the start of the FCC’s examination of its multiple ownership rules in anticipation of its Quadrennial Review of these rules, the question of TV shared services agreements has been one raised by public interest groups, suggesting that combinations of local TV stations for news or sales purposes are not in the public interest…

Does a broadcast station need to book a political ad buy for an agency purporting to be representing a candidate, but refusing to reveal who that candidate is? We’ve recently received this question from a number of broadcast stations in a number of states, as agencies seemingly are jockeying to tie up valuable commercial time in advance of what is likely to be a hotly contested election in November. This seems to be happening particularly with stations that have coverage areas that include parts of certain “swing states” in the Presidential election, or in states with crucial Congressional or Senatorial elections. It seems to us that, unless and until you know that there is a real candidate, there is no obligation for a station to book time for a hypothetical candidate or candidate to be named later.

Booking time for an unknown candidate raises numerous issues for a station. How can a station account for the sale of that time in its political file? If it doesn’t know who the candidate is, it can’t place the required information (which includes the candidate’s name) into the political file. Booking time for a political candidate gives rise to equal opportunities obligations, even outside the 45 and 60 days political windows. How can you determine to whom you owe equal time when the station itself doesn’t even know who the candidate is? And, if the agency even refuses to reveal if it is a Federal or state campaign for which it plans to buy time, making time available to an agency on behalf of an unknown candidate that turns out to be a state candidate may cause the station, through the application of equal opportunities, to have to sell time for a race to which it did not intend to provide access, or to open up dayparts to that state race when it did not intend to offer those dayparts to state candidates. In fact, without knowing the candidate, how can the station assess whether the candidate is legally qualified, or that the time is being purchased by an authorized candidate committee? Continue Reading What is a Broadcaster to Do When Approached by an Ad Agency Buying Time for an Undisclosed Political Candidate?

Last month, we wrote about the proposed settlement on "mechanical royalties" under Section 115 of the Copyright Act. These royalties are paid when "reproductions" are made of a musical composition.  In the analog world, these were most commonly paid by a record company to a music publisher for the rights to use a musical composition when one…

The FCC last week proposed to fine a broadcaster for calling someone with their tape recorder running, with the intent to broadcast the taped conversation on the air.  According to the Notice of Apparent Liability issued by the FCC, the recording was stopped after the radio station announcers identified who they were, and the person who…

The Radio Music Licensing Committee has announced a settlement with BMI over music royalties for the public performance of musical compositions for the period from 2010-2016.  Terms have not been announced, so we can’t provide the details, yet.  But as we wrote recently when the RMLC announced the terms of its agreement with ASCAP, we would assume that the terms would be somewhat similar to the ASCAP deal.  If no settlement had been reached with BMI, the case would have gone to a "rate court" in Federal District Court to see what the fair market value of the performance right was.  As analogous rates often form the basis for rate court determinations of fair market value, the settlement with ASCAP would no doubt have been an issue for BMI, as it would appear to set a benchmark rate for the public performance of musical compositions.  But, we will have to wait to see what the filings say before we can determine if, for sure, the rates will decrease relative to prior rates to the same extent that they did for ASCAP.

It is worth reflecting on how RMLC came to reach deals with ASCAP and BMI, and to explain why there is no reference to a SESAC deal.  I’ve already heard or seen several people suggesting that an agreement with SESAC may be next – when in fact that is not something that is imminent, as can be explained by the differences between ASCAP and BMI on one hand, and SESAC on the other.  ASCAP and BMI are both governed by anti-trust consent decrees that have been in place for over 50 years.  Under both decrees, these organizations have to enter into agreements to set royalties for all similarly-situated users of music in various categories of businesses – categories including radio, TV, websites, background music, restaurants, bars, hotels, performance venues and practically every other place where music is performed for the public.  If no agreement can be reached on a voluntary license, a “rate court” decides on the royalties. Essentially, that means that a US District Court in New York has a trial to set the rates.Continue Reading Radio Music Licensing Committee Announces Settlement With BMI Following Settlement With ASCAP – Why SESAC is Not Included