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

I’m writing this entry as I return from the annual convention of the Iowa Broadcasters Association, held this year in Des Moines, Iowa. Anyone who has read, watched or listened to the national news this week knows of the terrible tornadoes that devastated a Boy Scout camp in that state, and the floods ravaging many of its cities and threatening others. I arrived in Iowa on Wednesday having just completed the filing of reply comments in the FCC’s localism proceeding, and after reviewing the many comments filed in that proceeding. After talking with, watching and listening to the Iowa Broadcasters, I was struck by the contrast between the picture of the broadcast industry contained in the Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking and that which I saw and heard reflected in the words and actions of the broadcasters. I could only think of how the broadcasters of Iowa and the remainder of the country have dealt admirably in their programming with the disasters that nature has sent their way, and with the other issues facing this country every day, and have been able to do this all without any compulsion by the government. Why, when we have probably the most responsive broadcast system on earth, do we need the government to step in and tell broadcasters how to serve their communities?

At dinner on Wednesday, I watched one station general manager repeatedly getting up from his meal to take calls from his station about their coverage of a tornado that had come within a quarter mile of his studio, and how he had to insist that his employees take shelter from the storm rather than continuing to broadcast news reports from their exposed location as the tornado bore down on them. Another told me of how he and another employee had spent the previous day piling sandbags around the station to keep the water from flooding the studio, all the time reporting between every song the station played updates on the weather and travel conditions in their community. Other stations had continued to operate after their tower sites flooded by gerry-rigging antennas on dry land to permit their continued operation. In one of the more minor inconveniences, one station talked about operating for a few days after their city’s waterworks had been inundated by floods , meaning that their studio (and the rest of town) had no running water for drinking or even for flushing the toilets.  Yet, between these inconveniences, large and small, the broadcasters continued their service, without being told how by the government.Continue Reading Iowa Broadcasters – Floods, Tornadoes and Localism

Watch what your employees are up to. That’s the message of a recent decision by the FCC, fining a broadcaster $4000 for airing a telephone call that was taped and broadcast without the consent of the caller. In the case released earlier this week, the licensee asked for forgiveness based on the fact that the employee had already left the employment of the station, and because the licensee did not know of the conduct, could not even confirm that it occurred, and did not condone that conduct if it had in fact taken place. Essentially, the FCC found that the evidence provided by the caller who complained to the FCC was so convincing that the Commission could conclude that the call had in fact been aired without the caller’s consent even though the licensee could not confirm it, and the licensee was responsible for the actions of its employees. This sends the clear message to licensees that they must carefully supervise their employees, and think twice about putting that “wild and crazy” disc jockey on the air if the licensee thinks that he won’t be restrained by the Commission’s rules.

This case is another example of the FCC’s rules against airing phone calls without the consent of the caller (or taping those calls for airing without consent), except in the limited circumstances where a caller should know from the context of the program that, by calling the station, he will be put on the air. For instance, if the caller calls on a call-in line to an on-air show where the stations employees are regularly putting callers on the air, then the station should not have problems under the rules. But broadcasters are safest if they are cautious with such phone calls – warning callers with a taped or live message that there call may be taped or put on the air before the taping or airing occursContinue Reading Fine for Airing Telephone Call Without Permission – Unauthorized Employee No Excuse

The appeals of last year’s Copyright Royalty Board decision on the royalties paid for the use of sound recordings by Internet radio stations continue on, and one recent filing raises interesting questions of whether or not the CRB was properly appointed.  Last week, the Department of Justice, which represents the CRB in defending its decision in the Court of Appeals, filed its brief in opposition to the briefs of the webcasters, which we summarized here.  The DOJ brief essentially argued that the webcasters’ briefs were insufficient to satisfy the requirement for a successful appeal – that the CRB decision was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise contrary to law.  Essentially, a Court need not revisit the decision and substitute its judgment as to whether the it believes that the decision was correct, but instead, to overturn a decision, the Court must find that the CRB (the expert agency) either violated the law or could not, on the fact, have logically come up with the decision that it did.  Thus, the DOJ brief made arguments that there was enough factual evidence for the CRB to decide in the way that it did, and made arguments that the webcasters had not offered contrary arguments or evidence on certain points during the CRB proceeding and were therefore barred from raising those arguments now.  Just before the DOJ brief was filed, another pleading raised the fundamental question of whether the Copyright Royalty Board was properly appointed and, if not, whether it has the constitutional authority to decide the cases that it has been considering.

This new argument about the CRB’s authority comes in a request filed with the Court of Appeals by Royalty Logic, a party to the CRB proceeding.  Royalty Logic is not a webcaster, but instead is seeking to be an alternative collection agency to SoundExchange.  Its pleading seeks supplemental briefing on the question of whether the Copyright Royalty Judges are “inferior officers” of the Federal government who, under the Constitution, can only be appointed by the President, by the Courts or by the head of a Department of the government. In a recent Supreme Court case, the Court found that certain tax court judges, who were appointed by a chief judge and not by a cabinet-level officer (the head of a “department”) violated this Appointments Clause of the Constitution. There has been much press coverage in the past few weeks as to whether this decision also applies to patent judges, and whether it could invalidate hundreds of patents approved by these judges (see the NY Times article on this issue, and listen to an NPR piece about the controversy). Royalty Logic contends that the same logic should apply to the appointment of the Copyright Royalty Judges who make up the CRB.  The Copyright Royalty Judges are appointed by the Librarian of Congress.  One question would be whether the Librarian is the equivalent to the head of a department though, technically, the Library of Congress is not even in the Executive Branch of government, but instead part of Congress.  In any event, Royalty Logic notes that the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, a predecessor agency done away with during the Clinton administration as part of their "Reinventing Government" program (one of the few agencies that was "reinvented"), had members appointed by the President.Continue Reading Does the Copyright Royalty Board Exist – Internet Radio Appeal Proceeds and New Issues Arise

At a meeting held this week, the Radio Advertising Bureau (RAB) adopted Guidelines promoting the use of "posting" or audience delivery guarantees for the radio industry.  While these guidelines are voluntary, and no doubt some broadcasters will not adopt the practice, those who do should be aware of the political broadcasting implications.  For years, at political broadcasting seminars that I have conducted around the country, the question of how posting affects the political broadcasting obligations of television broadcasters has been much discussed. In its 1991 policy statement on Political Broadcasting, which essentially established the rules that broadcasters have followed in the years since, the Commission’s entire discussion of how audience underdelivery make good spots affected a station’s political broadcasting obligations was essentially addressed in two sentences – essentially saying that such guarantees must be made available to candidates in the same manner as commercial advertisers.  Thus, stations must offer audience delivery guarantees to political advertisers if they offer such guarantees to commercial advertisers.  The 1992 reconsideration added a few more sentences, making clear that any make-good spots provided to meet any delivery guaranty would not need to be considered in determining the lowest unit charge of the time periods in which the make good runs.  What the Commission leaves to the broadcaster, however, is to fashion a way to compensate the candidate for underdelivery when the underdelivery may not be discovered for months (when the next ratings book is released), which will usually be after the election for which the candidate purchased the spots. 

In the television industry, where posting has been common for years, stations deal with the political implications in many different ways.  First, not all purchased spots will have delivery guarantees. Under Commission rules, spots that have different rights can be considered to be spots of a different class, and each class of spots will have its own lowest unit rate.  Thus, spots with audience delivery guarantees will likely have a higher price than those that do not have the guarantees.  As the make good spots for any underdelivery of audience will be of little value if they are not available until after an election, the candidates will usually opt for the lower priced spots without the guarantees.  Alternatively, stations can offer candidates a discount off of their lowest unit rates for spots with guarantees in exchange for the candidates agreeing to waive any underdelivery make-good spots.  In a few cases, candidates agree to take any make-good spots to which they may be entitled, and use them after the election to thank their supporters or to convey policy positions to their constituents.Continue Reading RAB Adopts Guidelines for “Posting” – Remember to Consider the Political Broadcasting Implications

With the Digital Television conversion date only eight and a half months away, the end game is beginning.  The FCC has announced that Wilmington, North Carolina will be a test market for the digital conversion, going all-digital on September 8 (or almost all digital, as the local NPR affiliate is not planning to turn off its analog signal, and one LPTV station will continue to operate in analog).  This will provide the FCC with an opportunity to determine what will really happen when the digital transition occurs in February of next year.  What will the FCC learn from this early test?  In the statement of Commissioner Copps at a recent town hall meeting held in Wilmington to address the digital conversion, some of the issues to be watched were set out.

Essentially, the Commissioner identified four different broad categories of issues that would be considered.  They are:

  • Technical issues – will the DTV signals provide adequate service to their communities?  Will the converter boxes be able to receive the signals with "rabbit ear" antennas, or will there be reception problems
  • Will consumers have received the word about the transition, or are there certain groups that will be particularly hard-hit by the transition, missing out on vital information about that transition?
  • How will various partnerships work?  The Commissioner identifies partnerships between various industry, government and community groups to distribute news about the transition, but there are also partnerships between stations and multi-channel video providers (cable and direct broadcast satellite) that need to be worked out
  • The unknown – what other issues that are not anticipated will arise?

As set forth below, many of these issues have been receiving extensive press coverage in recent weeks.Continue Reading What Will the FCC Learn from Wilmington – The Beginning of the End of the TV Digital Transition

With the recent spate of severe weather throughout the country, a reminder about the FCC’s rules on the presentation of specific emergency information is in order.  The FCC rules requires that any specific emergency information – not a generalized warning, but a specific warning directed at a specific location – must be presented visually as…

Last year, Congress considered limits on direct to consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising (about which we wrote here), but this effort stalled.  A recent letter from two Congressional leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee suggest that Congress is looking at these issues once again.  This advertising has become important to television networks, and to drug…

David Oxenford of Davis Wright Tremaine’s Washington DC office will speak at the Iowa Broadcasters Association Convention in Des Moines on June 12, 2008.  Dave will be conducting a seminar on the FCC’s political broadcasting rules with Bobby Baker, head of the FCC’s Office of Political Broadcasting.

DWT’s Political Broadcasting Guide, which summarizes many…

UPDATE  5-29-2008-  Please note, the Commission has revised the dates for submitting comments in this rule making proceeding.  Comments in the proceeding are now due on or before June 30, 2008, and Reply Comments are due on or before July 14, 2008.  This means that interested parties have a couple of weeks less than…

Last week, the US Senate passed a resolution of disapproval, which seeks to overturn the FCC’s December decision relaxing the multiple ownership rules to allow newspapers and television stations to come under common ownership in the nation’s largest markets (see our summary of the FCC decision here).  This vote, by itself, does not overturn that decision.  Like any other legislation, it must also be adopted by the House of Representatives, and not vetoed by the President, to become law.  In 2003, the last time that the FCC attempted to relax its ownership rules, the Senate approved a similar resolution, but the House never followed suit (perhaps because the decision was stayed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals before the House could act).  In this case, we will have to see whether the House acts (no dates for its consideration have yet been scheduled).  Even if the House does approve the resolution, White House officials have indicated that the President will veto the bill, meaning that, unless there is a 2/3 majority of each house of Congress ready to override the veto, this effort will also fail.

The reactions to this bill passing the Senate have been varied.  The two FCC Democratic Commissioners, who both opposed any relaxation of the ownership rules, each issued statements praising the Senate action (see Commissioner Copps statement here and that of Commissioner Adelstein here).  The NAB, on the other hand, opposed the action, arguing that the relaxation was minimal, that it was necessary given "seismic changes in the media landscape over the last three decades" (presumably referring to including the economic and competitive pressures faced by the broadcast and newspaper industries in the current media environment), and that it ought not be undone by Congressional actions.   Continue Reading Senate Resolution of Disapproval on Multiple Ownership – What Does it Mean?