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 I was preparing for a session updating and refreshing broadcasters about their obligations under the FCC’s EEO rules at the Iowa Broadcasters Association annual convention in Des Moines on June 30, I learned of what seemed to be a startling development – the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, one of the most effective advocates in Washington for minority hiring and ownership, had urged the FCC to suspend its enforcement of the EEO rules. What was this all about? I went on with my presentation (the PowerPoint slides for which are available here, and the slides for the presentation that I did at another session providing an update on Washington issues for radio broadcasters are available here), quickly adding a summary of the MMTC request. While some broadcasters might have hoped that the request recognized that the EEO rules were no longer necessary as broadcasters were, on their own, making great strides in diversifying their workforce, in fact what the MMTC was seeking was tighter EEO enforcement, contending that the current rules are so ineffective as to not be worth the time spent on their implementation and enforcement.

While MMTC acknowledged that there have been a number of recent cases fining stations for noncompliance with the EEO rules, it contends that often the stations that are hit by such fines have very diverse workforces, and thus should not have to worry about EEO outreach. We have written about some of these fines.  These cases demonstrate that the current rules are not targeted at minority and gender-based affirmative action, as FCC rules requiring any evaluation of minority and gender-based hiring were twice declared by the US Court of Appeals to be instances of unconstitutional reverse discrimination. Instead, the current rules are focused instead on bringing new people into the broadcast employment workforce – people recruited from a wide variety of community groups, and not exclusively by word of mouth or through other hiring avenues that simply take people from traditional broadcast hiring sources. But, as MMTC points out, these rules are not based on necessarily seeking to include members of minority groups or women in station workforces.  Thus, as their focus is simply on wide dissemination of information about job openings, even stations that have high percentages of minorities and women on their staffs can still run afoul of the rules by not publicizing job openings.Continue Reading David Oxenford Reviews EEO Rules with the Iowa Broadcasters, While MMTC Asks the FCC to Suspend EEO Enforcement

The long-delayed revised Biennial ownership reports (about which we last wrote here) for commercial broadcast stations, on the new Form 323, are due on July 8, and the FCC is in the process of clarifying what it needs.  The Commission just released a Public Notice reminding broadcasters that the report is supposed to be detailing station ownership as of November 1, 2009 (when the reports were originally supposed to be filed).  Yet, in the 8 months since that date, many stations have changed ownership.  Is a new owner supposed to get the old owner to complete the form?  What if the old owner is off somewhere on a cruise, or simply wants nothing more to do with the station?  The FCC’s Public Notice clarifies (to some extent) what to do in that case – indicating that stations in that situation can file a waiver request, detailing why they can’t provide the ownership information for the owners who held the station license on November 1, 2009, and asking that the FCC waive its rules and excuse the filing of a report for this particular station.  This obligation to file the waiver request is on the current owner.  Note that the FCC does not say that it will grant all such waiver requests, and it specifically excludes from these waiver situations "pro forma" assignments or transfers, i.e. ones where the actual control has not changed but the legal entity holding that control has changed such as in a corporate reorganization where a station license is moved from a parent company to a subsidiary, or from a corporation to an LLC which is controlled by the same individual. 

Another looming issue may also create issues for the July 8 filings.  A group of state broadcast associations and broadcast owners has asked the US Court of Appeals to once again put the filing obligation on hold until the FCC justifies the information that is being collected.  Last week, the Court asked the Commission to justify its requirement that each person with an attributable interest in a station (i.e. anyone who would have to be reported on the Form 323) obtain an FRN (a unique identifier) which can only be obtained by furnishing  a Social Security Number.  While this may indicate that the Court is concerned about forcing every investor and officer and director of a broadcast company to provide this information, even if the Court forbids the collection of that information, it is possible that the FCC would move forward anyway with the Form 323 filing obligation – just removing the FRN from the required filing.  So don’t count on the July 8 deadline being pushed back – start preparing now to be on file by the deadline.Continue Reading July 8 Filing Deadline for Commercial Broadcast Stations Form 323 Ownership Report – Clarifications Issued

The FCC issued a reminder to all video program distributors – including TV stations, cable systems and satellite television providers –  that emergency information must be made accessible to those with hearing or vision disabilities.  For those with hearing difficulty, the Commission reminded providers that they must make information available visually as well as aurally – either through closed captioning or some other method that the aurally impaired can understand the nature of the emergency. For the visually impaired, if the emergency information is provided in a crawl or through some other non-verbal manner, there need to be alert tones broadcast identifying that emergency information is being conveyed so that visually impaired viewers can make arrangements to find out what the emergency is.  With hurricane season upon us, the Commission wanted to remind video service providers of these obligations.

The Commission also reminded service providers and viewers of the new complaint process, about which we wrote here, that sets up a process for viewers who believe that there has not been proper captioning information provided.  This reminder alone should alert broadcasters and other video program providers of the seriousness with which the FCC views these rules.Continue Reading FCC Reminder About Making Emergency Information Accessible to People With Hearing or Vision Disabilities

In an email blast that went out this morning, the musicFIRST Coalition, the group organized to pursue a performance royalty on radio broadcasters for the use of music in their over-the-air broadcasts, announced that they would be holding a rally and concert with a member of the 1960s rock band the Monkees, musically backed by three Congressmen. …

In a recent speech before the Community Radio Conference, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn suggested that the proposal to reallocate Channels 5 and 6 for FM radio use had merit and should be considered further.  That proposal is already before the FCC, and ripe for decision – so it could theoretically be adopted tomorrow.  However, the proposal is not backed by all.  While Commissioner Clyburn may think that the idea bears more exploration, there seems to be significantly more consideration that is necessary before a decision on the pending proposals can be made.  What are these proposals, and what is standing in the way of a reallocation? 

As we have written before, the proposals have been made to take TV Channels 5 and 6, which are immediately adjacent to the FM band, and reallocate them to radio broadcasting.  The pending proposals include suggestions that LPFM stations could be located on the new FM channels that could be created, that new space for noncommercial radio operations could be created and, if they operated digitally, there would even be room to move the entire AM band to Channel 5.  While some have suggested that any relief from such a transition would be long in coming, as radios would need to be manufactured, in fact that process might not be as prolonged as suggested, as the frequencies used by these television channels are already used for FM radio in Asia.  Radios already exist that could pick up these channels (at least for analog reception).  However, television interests have opposed this reallotment, but it may well be the broadband plan which could have the greatest impact on the consideration of this issue. Continue Reading Commissioner Clyburn Suggests TV Channels 5 and 6 Could Be Used For Radio – Will It Happen?

Davis Wright Tremaine attorneys David Oxenford and Rob Driscoll conducted a seminar –  Using Music in Digital Media: Business and Legal Issues – on June 16, 2010 in New York City.  The seminar was presented to attorneys from committees of the New York State and New York City bar associations.  In the seminar, Dave and…

Stations that are licensed as "noncommercial educational" stations are prohibited by the FCC from running commercials – seemingly a pretty straightforward prohibition.  Yet drawing the line between a prohibited commercial and a permissible sponsorship acknowledgment is sometimes difficult in these days of "enhanced underwriting."   In a recent case, the FCC fined a noncommercial radio station $12,500 for repeatedly airing 4 announcements from sponsors that the Commission found to have crossed the line by being overly promotional.  These announcements, which appear to have been recordings of unscripted sponsor acknowledgments, demonstrate how carefully noncommercial stations must police their sponsorship announcements to avoid risking an FCC sanction.

The announcements in these cases are worth reviewing. Some have subtle promotional messages, while the areas of concern are more clear in others.  But in reaching its decision, the Commission goes through a close analysis of the wording of each announcement to see if the announcement contains "comparative or qualitative descriptions, price information, calls to action, or inducements to buy, sell, rent or lease", all prohibited language in a noncommercial sponsorship identification.  So, when one of the announcement referred to "beautiful Harley Davidson light trucks" sold by a local auto dealer who sponsored the station, the FCC found that this was a qualitative claim that went over the line.  Similarly, statements that "we have it here" or "where we are proud to be Mexicans" (these announcements having been run on a Spanish-language station in California) were found to be attempts to qualitatively distinguish this dealer from others, or to be inducements to buy – a prohibited call to action.  And a specific statement that "no downpayment" would be required on a purchase constituted the kind of price information that should not be contained in a sponsorship acknowledgment.  Another announcement for a local tire store had similar problems in the content of the ads, using phrases such as stating that the company "knows about tires" and that the company’s product "reduces [the] loss [of tire] pressure" and "has less risk of suffering damages . . . last longer and [is] not too expensive cause you to save more . . . [and] save more in gas per mileage."Continue Reading Noncommercial FM Station Fined $12,500 for Sponsorship Acknowledgments That Were Too Commercial

In the last few weeks, I’ve been asked several times by broadcasters whether an ad should be considered an "issue ad."   Usually, the ad in question deals with some sort of faintly controversial issue, and the broadcaster seems torn about how to classify the ad.   In many ways, the answer is almost irrelevant as, other than some public file obligations, whether or not an ad is an issue ad has little practical significance.  Issue ads are not entitled to special rates – lowest unit rates are reserved for candidate ads.  They are not entitled to special placement in broadcast schedules.  As there is no Fairness Doctrine, there isn’t even a requirement that you treat both sides of an issue in the same fashion (except perhaps, where a Fairness obligation may still arise if the issue being discussed is a candidate in an election, when the last remnant of Fairness, the Zapple Doctrine, has not officially been declared dead).  So why worry about whether or not something is an issue ad?

The principal reason is the public file. Commission rules require that the sponsor of an issue ad be identified in a broadcaster’s public file, along with the sponsor’s principal officers or directors.  This is required for any ad dealing with a controversial issue of public importance.  The ad does not need to deal with a political issue, or one to be considered by a government body.  Any controversial issue of public importance merits the public file treatment.  For ads dealing with a "federal issue", one to be considered by the US Congress, any Federal administrative agency or any other branch of the United States government, additional disclosures need to be made in the file (which we have listed before), setting out all the information that you would need to provide with respect to a candidate ad – including the price paid for the ad and the schedule on which the ad will run. Continue Reading So Just What is an “Issue Ad” and Why Should I Care?

According to a letter from the Copyright Office that has recently been made public, the economic troubles of broadcasters, which have been used to argue against the imposition of a performance royalty for the use of sound recordings by radio stations, are cyclical and are largely over.  Thus, argues the letter, the improvement in the fortunes of radio stations merits a reexamination of whether the Performance Rights Act imposing such a royalty should be adopted.  The letter contrasts the reportedly good news for radio broadcasters with the Copyright Office’s view of the plight of the record industry, which is deemed to be more permanent, based on the pervasive nature of illegal downloading.  Given the Copyright Office’s concern with the fate of the record companies, and their need to establish a more stable revenue source through payments of fees from the users of music to replace the sales of music that have declined so dramatically, the Copyright Office suggests that further review, with an eye toward adoption of the performance royalty, is merited.  This letter was addressed to the US General Accounting Office, which in February issued a report concluding that the imposition of a performance royalty would have a negative impact on the radio broadcast industry, as it has been hard hit by both fundamental changes in competition and from downturns in the business cycle, and that the imposition of the royalty would cause some stations to go out of business and others to cease playing music.  But the GAO promised a further review of certain issues, and the Copyright Office had not weighed in before the initial GAO report, this letter was prompted. 

The Copyright Office has long been on record as supporting the imposition of a performance royalty in sound recordings in the United States – not just for radio, but for all industries that use music.  This would match the performance royalty in the musical composition, as collected by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, for the public performance of musical compositions not only by radio, but also by television, cable television, in bars and restaurants and stadiums, and in virtually any other location where music is used in a public setting.  Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Copyright Office would take the position that it does in this letter.  What is perhaps surprising is that the letter seems to go beyond a legal document setting forth the legal justifications for the imposition of the royalty, and instead has the tone of an advocacy piece that takes a firm position in support of the recording industry over the interests of broadcasters, and one which advocates only the position of the recording industry.Continue Reading Copyright Office Issues Letter In Support of Broadcast Performance Royalty – Suggests that Economic Comeback for Radio Makes Royalty More Affordable

On May 27, 2010, David Oxenford spoke to the Vermont Association of Broadcasters annual meeting in Montpelier, updating the broadcasters on Washington events of importance, and discussing the FCC’s political broadcasting rules.  A copy of Dave’s PowerPoint on issues of importance to broadcasters will be posted here soon.  Broadcasters may want to refer to Davis Wright Tremaine’s Political Broadcasting Guide for a discussion of the political broadcasting issues that may arise in this election season.  One of the political broadcasting issues that was discussed in detail was the issue of what a station should do when faced with a political ad that comes from a third party, attacking a political candidate, and the candidate tells the station that the ad is untrue and, if it continues to run on the air, it may subject the station to liability.

This issue may be coming up more in the coming months.  The recent Citizens United case signals the potential for more campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. This money would be spent directly by these organizations, not contributed to the candidates, as the case did not loosen the limits on corporate contributions directly to candidate’s campaign committees. Thus, as the ads will not come from candidates, they will not be subject to the “no censorship” rule that applies only to candidate ads. Because the no censorship rules prevent a broadcast station from rejecting a candidate’s ad based on its content, stations are protected from any liability for the content of those candidate ads. In contrast, broadcasters are free to reject ads from corporations, labor unions, or other non-candidate groups. Because they can choose whether or not to accept such ads, they can technically be held liable for the contents of those ads, should the ad be defamatory or otherwise contain legally actionable material. This should not be new to broadcasters as, even before Citizens United, stations were often faced with complaints from candidates about ads from third party interest groups (like the political parties’ campaign committees, or so-called 527 groups like MoveOn.org) that were permitted to advertise even before the recent decision. Most broadcasters want to be able to accept these advocacy ads from non-candidate groups, but they also want to avoid potential liability. What is a station to do when it receives such an ad, or when an ad is already running and a candidate complains about its contents?Continue Reading David Oxenford Speaks to Vermont Broadcasters – Addresses What to Do When a Station Receives a Complaint about the Truth of a Political Ad