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

Congress finally has given to the FCC authority to conduct spectrum auctions to reclaim parts of the TV spectrum for wireless users, and most DC-based industry associations, including the NAB, have reacted favorably. For a process that was so controversial, this seems like a very favorable result. Television stations, in particular, will have much relief from concerns about the forced-reallocation of their operations to less favorable spectrum. While most trade press reports have reported on these statements and the very general outlines of the legislation, few have looked closely at the provisions that apply to the broadcaster auctions. Just what do they provide?

The auction provisions were adopted as part of the legislation that just extended the Social Security payroll tax deduction rollbacks, extended unemployment benefits, and fixed certain limitations that had arisen on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. All these benefits needed offsetting revenues to avoid unduly increasing the Federal deficit, and the one seemingly easy place to “find” money, was through spectrum auctions. So Congress ordered the President to identify certain Federal spectrum that could be made available for wireless users, and also authorized the FCC to conduct auctions of broadcast spectrum, but under the very specific guidelines set out below.Continue Reading Congress Authorizes FCC Incentive Auctions to Clear Part of Broadcast TV Spectrum for Wireless Broadband Users – The Details of the Legislation

Another EEO audit was announced by the FCC today – hitting about 200 radio stations and about 75 TV stations this time around. The Commission has pledged to audit 5% of all broadcast stations and cable systems each year to assure their compliance with the Commission’s EEO rules – requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and supplemental efforts…

The FCC’s main studio rules require that broadcast stations have a main studio open during normal business hours.  And, when the studio is open, it obviously needs to be manned so that someone is there to meet any visitors who my show up.  And, sometimes, those visitors are from the FCC.  When the FCC shows up, one would think that station employees would go out of their way to greet the inspectors and provide them what they want.  But in two cases decided this week, that simply didn’t seem to be the case, resulting in two notices of apparent liability proposing $10,000 fines.

One case involved a cable system (which also has a public file obligation and a duty to make the file available during normal business hours), whose employees allegedly asked FCC inspectors to return the next day when a supervisory employee would be present.  In a broadcast case, the FCC inspectors found an apparently unmanned building at what was supposed to be the station’s studio site and, when a woman arrived who was apparently the wife of the owner, rather than letting the inspectors in to the building, she told them they would have to call her husband – who did not answer his phone.  In responding to an FCC letter about the inspection that suggested that there was a violation, the licensee said that the inspectors erred by not ringing the door bell, and that employees come and go as they are needed, but are usually there during the day.  After getting that response, the FCC inspectors returned to the station to conduct another inspection, and found no doorbell, and an office that was again empty.  Obviously, these are preliminary findings of liability, and the facts and law, upon further examination, may prove to be different than what the FCC set out.  But broadcasters should take note of the FCC’s actions. Continue Reading When the FCC Comes Knocking, Answer the Door! – $10,000 Fines for Unattended Main Studios

An FCC letter to the licensee of an FM translator owner asking very specific information about a series of applications to move that translator to a larger market raises question as to whether the FCC is shutting the door on moves of translators from one market to another – where they have often been used to rebroadcast the signal of an AM or an FM HD signal, adding new competition.  While this letter does not explicitly say that multi-hop moves of translators are impermissible under FCC rules, the fact that an investigatory letter from the FCC to one applicant is published in the FCC’s general releases indicates that a message is being sent by the Commission.  And the letter questions whether the large move accomplished by a series of small hops is an abuse of the FCC’s processes.  The letter asks for the details of each move in the series – where the station was built, who gave permission to use the transmitter sites that were used, how long the station operated at each location, what primary station’s signal did the translator rebroadcast at each site, and what the applicant’s ultimate purpose in the moves was.  

We’ve written about the FCC’s apparent crackdown on FM translator moves – first by simply slowing the processing of such applications, then entering into a consent decree with a monetary penalty and the forfeiture of a translator license by a translator licensee who apparently did not have reasonable assurance of every transmitter site in a multi-hop move, then suggesting that such moves were an abuse of process (while, at the same time, making more limited moves easier).  Now  it seems to be actually taking steps to enforce the thinking that, where there is an intent to accomplish a "major change by multiple minor change applications", there is an abuse of process.  Thus, the FCC seems to be drawing the noose tighter around the ability to move these stations large distances.

The FCC, when it authorized the use of FM translators for AM stations  did so with the caveat that only translators that had been granted as of the date of its 2009 order would be allowed to be used for such rebroadcasts.  In many markets, this put a premium on existing translators, as there were not enough translators to rebroadcast all the stations that wanted to be rebroadcast – even where the spectrum to locate such translators existed.  A number of broadcasters found translators in other communities that could technically fit in the community where the broadcaster operated, and agreed to buy them if they could be moved.  Outside a "major change window", translators can only be moved by "minor changes", i.e. where their existing contour overlaps the proposed new contour.  During translator windows, larger moves are permitted, but the last translator window was in 2003.  Another is not expected for at least another year or, most probably, two or more.  To get around the limitation on major changes, translator licensees would file a series of minor change applications to move a translator from one site to another (commonly referred to as a "hop"), build the translator at each site, and, through a series of minor changes, ultimately move to the city where there was an AM station or HD signal that wanted to use that translator.  For a time, the FCC seemed fine with this process.Continue Reading FCC Letter Questions Multi-Hop Move of FM Translator – Limits on Availability of Translators for AM Stations?

In every license renewal application, applicants must certify that their operations are in compliance with the RF radiation standards set out in Section 1.1310 of the Commission’s rules. In connection with the renewal applications of two Hawaii FM stations, the FCC issued short-term one-year renewals of the station’s licenses, rather than the normal 8 year renewals. The Commission’s decision chronicles a period that spanned several years where the FCC twice found the stations to be in violation of the RF radiation rules, responding to complaints from those who worked nearby. The first time the station had reported that the problem was corrected, the FCC inspected and found that it still existed. Finally, after these inspections and FCC fines for noncompliance, the stations moved to new sites that resolved the issues.

Beyond the demonstration of how seriously the FCC takes its RF radiation rules, and how broadcasters need to be truthful and accurate in reporting on the state of their compliance, the decision shows the FCC’s process of evaluating penalties when deciding whether to issue a license renewal to an applicant with a history of rule violations. The FCC has several choices when confronted at license renewal time with violations of its rules. In many cases (like public file violations that we wrote about last week), the FCC will simply issue a fine. As in this case, the FCC can issue a short-term renewal. But, in the case of serious violations, the FCC can “designate a case for hearing”, meaning that they send the renewal application to an administrative law judge (a judge who is part of the FCC) to hold a trial-type hearing to determine if the license should be revoked. When is that most serious option pursued?Continue Reading Short Term License Issued to Radio Stations Because of Violations of RF Radiation Rules – Showing the FCC’s Options for Penalties at License Renewal Time

The Copyright Royalty Board makes many important decisions, yet for the last several years, there has been a cloud over its operations, as there have been questions as to whether its members were constitutionally appointed (see our articles here, here and here). Well, the question is before the Courts again – this time squarely in front of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – a Court one step below the Supreme Court. The Copyright Royalty Board sets the royalty rates to be paid by Internet radio stations for the public performance of sound recordings, and in doing so, they have made some controversial decisions over the last few years. They also set royalties for other digital non-interactive music services, including Sirius XM, music services that come with cable and satellite television services, and background music services. The Board also oversees the distribution of funds that are collected for the retransmission of distant television signals by cable systems. It also sets the rates under Section 115 of the Copyright Act for the reproductions of musical compositions made by record companies when producing musical recordings or downloads, by digital music companies in connection with on-demand music services, and by wireless carriers in selling ringtones. 

The case before the Court involves a seemingly small matter – the appeal of Intercollegiate Broadcasting Services from the CRB decision setting default rates for Internet radio services that are not covered by one of the many Webcaster Settlement Act agreements (about which we wrote here and here). IBS essentially is objecting to the fact that the Board would not lower the annual minimum royalty fee paid by some of IBS’ smaller members below $500. But, in connection with its appeal, IBS raised the issue of the constitutionality of the appointment of the Judges, and the Court this week heard an oral argument on the issue – mentioning the rate questions only in passing while concentrating on the constitutionality of the appointment of the Judges.Continue Reading Constitutionality of Copyright Royalty Board Argued Before the US Court of Appeals – How Will It Affect Future Music Royalty Rate-Setting?

In the last few days, the FCC proposed three fines – all involving violations of the public inspection file rule, and all amounting to $10,000.  But the facts of the three cases are radically different, and one wonders about why all ended up with the same fine.  But more importantly, the cases again raise the issue of why the penalty for public file violations is so high in relation to other fines for what would seemingly be more important issues – ones involving interference to other stations and, potentially, public safety.  We’ve raised the question before as to whether public file violations, which have a $10,000 base fine adopted in the FCC’s Forfeiture Policy Statement (which includes a schedule of base fines for various different types of violations), is really appropriate given the lower fines for what would seem to be more crucial issues – like stations operating in some way that is technically different than they are licensed, or where they don’t have operating EAS systems that can pass along crucial emergency information – offenses with lower suggested fines. Looking at the facts in each of this week’s cases show that, even among public file offenses, the fine may be the same, yet the offenses seem very different.

In one case, an FCC inspection discovered an AM/FM combination operating with a tower with some of its required lights that did not work, an EAS system that wasn’t working and which had not been working apparently for years, an FM station that was operating overpower, and a single public file for the two stations, one that was lacking any Quarterly Issues Programs lists.  With all of these violations over 2 stations, the FCC could have fined these stations as much as $42,000, but the FCC reduced the fine to $10,000 based on the licensee’s demonstrated inability to pay the higher fine.  But more interesting for this analysis was the comparative cost of each of the violations.  Under the FCC’s analysis, the public file violation was worth $10,000, while the base fine for the EAS violation was only $8000, and the fine for the tower lights was the same as that for the missing documents in the public file.  The overpower operation drew only a $4000 fine.  Why is a public file violation, which probably no one ever asked to see, a violation with a penalty as severe as those for matters that could affect public safety – tower lights and EAS?  And why is it more than double the fine for overpower operation, which could cause interference – an issue as the heart of the FCC’s reason for being?  Continue Reading Three $10,000 FCC Broadcast Fines, All Involving the Public File, Show Differences in Enforcement

The FCC proposed a $44,000 fine on a Chicago radio station for running 11 announcements that did not contain a sponsorship identification.  This fine was not for 11 different announcements for different groups, but instead a single announcement run 11 times.  Each airing of the announcement triggered a $4000 fine (which is the amount of the FCC "base fine" for a sponsorship identification violation).  According to the FCC decision, a group called the Workers Independent News ("WIN") bought 2 two-hour programs, one one-hour program, and a number of shorter promotional announcements for those programs. 11 of the promotional announcements did not specifically state that they were sponsored.  Instead, these 11 announcements – each 90 seconds long – consisted of an interviewer, identifying himself as being with Workers Independent News, discussing a local issue with local legislator.  While the announcement did open with a mention of WIN, it didn’t specifically say that they had paid for the spot.  Presumably, the FCC feared that the spot sounded like a program element, perhaps even a news interview (even though it ran in a commercial break), and held that the mere reference to WIN without any explicit statement that the spot was paid for by that group was not enough to convey sponsorship of the ad or to meet the FCC rules requiring sponsorship identification.

The decision here shows how seriously the FCC takes the issue of being able to identify who is trying to influence listeners by providing some form of valuable consideration to a broadcast station in exchange for the broadcast of a message.  This issue is the subject of an FCC rulemaking proceeding, has previously led to fines for other stations (though rarely ones of this magnitude, even where the FCC has found whole programs or portions of programs to have been sponsored – see, for example, the cases we’ve written about here and here dealing with "video news releases"), and has become part of the proposals for the new on-line public file, suggesting that sponsorship identification information be made available for any "pay-for-play" programming in such a file.  The issue has even become important in the online world, with the FTC issuing rules that require similar sponsorship identification even in connection with social media posts for which the author has received consideration (see our summary of the FTC order here).Continue Reading $44,000 Fine for Radio Station Not Including Sponsorship Identification in Paid Message

In an 11th hour decision released at about 5 PM on the Friday before the Super Bowl,the FCC decided that TV station WMAQ-TV in Chicago was justified in denying Randall Terry’s request to buy advertising time in the Super Bowl.  As we’ve written before, Mr. Terry is claiming that he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, and as such has a right of reasonable access to broadcast stations, meaning that they must sell him advertising time.  If he had such rights, the stations could not censor the content of the ads that the candidate decided to run (see our article here about the Communications Act’s no censorship rule).  As Mr. Terry has promised to run some very graphic antiabortion ads featuring images of aborted fetuses, many stations were reluctant to run the ads, especially in the Super Bowl when families will be watching the big game.  The FCC decided that WMAQ-TV acted reasonably in denying Mr. Terry time in the Super Bowl for two reasons: (1) he had failed to make a substantial showing of his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in Illinois, and (2) even if he had, he had no right to demand that his ads be placed in the Super Bowl.  Each of these prongs of the decision clarifies some issues in the law of political broadcasting that had been long-debated, but the first part of the decision leaves questions – important questions to which many stations want answers.

The first prong of the decision concluded that WMAQ-TV was justified in determining that Mr. Terry was not a bona fide candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in Illinois as he was not on the ballot there, and had not made a "substantial showing" that he was otherwise a candidate in the state (see our discussion of the requirements to be a legally qualified candidate, here).  The FCC found that the station did not need to be a private investigator and ferret out every instance of campaign activity that Mr. Terry had engaged in within the state to determine if his activity was substantial.  Instead, the station could rely on the information that Terry presented to it when he made his request.  That information essentially amounted to the fact that he had made appearances in two small towns in the state, and had some campaign literature (though there was no evidence that it was ever distributed in Illinois).  Based on those facts, the Commission denied the request – concluding that he had not engaged in campaign activities throughout a substantial portion of the state, as required by prior FCC precedent.  While this may answer the question in this case (and helped to clarify the law as to the showing that write-in candidates need to make before they can demand reasonable access to broadcast stations), it leaves several questions unanswered for stations that have or may receive Mr. Terry’s request for airtime in other states where Mr. Terry is on the ballot.Continue Reading FCC Decides That Randall Terry Not Entitled to Run Graphic Anti-Abortion TV Ads in the Super Bowl For His “Presidential Campaign” – But Questions Remain

For an industry that some say is about to be made obsolete because of its digital competition, there are still many people who want a piece of the FM spectrum.   We’ve written much about the contest between LPFM and translator proponents seeking their piece of FM spectrum – a contest that we should see resolved by the FCC in the very near future. One topic that we have not written much about is "pirate radio," stations that operate illegally – without FCC authority.  This week, the FCC issued several orders, fining individuals up to $25,000 for operating pirate radio stations in various places around the country (see decisions here and here, and two other fines of $20,000 or more noted below).  Pirate radio has been and remains a big problem for many broadcasters and, despite the fines in cases like this, pirates seem to continue to crop up – especially in urban markets.

The pirate radio problem has always been with broadcasters.  In the past there was both the romance of the outlaw radio operator and concerns over the snake oil salesmen who were broadcasting from stations in Mexico, and there was a famous religious broadcaster who lost a battle with the FCC over the Fairness Doctrine in connection with a real radio station and then resumed operations from a boat off the coast of New Jersey.  But in the last 20 years pirates have been much more localized, low power operators, trying to reach audiences largely in urban areas. Despite a series of court decisions rejecting any First Amendment claim of pirates, and denying any claim that these low-power, local stations did not implicate the FCC’s power over interstate commerce regulation, pirates have never gone away.  In many ways, the FCC introduced the concept of Low Power FM stations in the 1990s as a way to provide an outlet for those who might otherwise be inclined to operate an unlicensed station.  In fact, one of the big arguments at the time of the initiation of LPFM was whether former pirate radio operators should be allowed to apply for LPFM stations.Continue Reading Pirates, Pirates Everywhere – Fines Up to $25,000 for Unlicensed Radio Stations