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 we reminded broadcasters earlier this month, the first filings of FCC Form 397, the Broadcast Mid-Term EEO Report, will be due to be filed at the FCC on June 1.  This report is filed 4 years after the due date for filing of a station’s license renewal application, and is to be filed by all radio station employment units with more than 10 full time employees, and all TV station employment units with five or more employees.  The first reports are due on June 1 by radio groups in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.  Every two months thereafter, stations in a different group of states will need to file their Mid-Term reports.  Last week, the FCC released a Public Notice clarifying some aspects of the filing process.

The Public Notice addressed two principal issues – (1) what happens when radio station clusters and their associated station employment units include stations in different states with different filing deadlines, and (2) what happens when employment units include both radio and television stations in the same state.  For radio employment units with stations in different states, the FCC reminds broadcasters that they should have made an election about which state’s filing deadline to use back in 2003 when the current EEO rules were adopted, and they should have been using that election for each of their public file reports since then.  That same election would control the filing deadline for the Mid-Term report. Continue Reading FCC Issues Clarification of Mid-Term EEO Report Obligations of Broadcasters

Three of the FCC Commissioners have responded to the Congressional inquiry about the Commission’s rules regarding junk food advertising about which we wrote here.  This inquiry was initiated by Congressman Ed Markey, Chairman of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. The Congressman’s letter had urged the FCC to move quickly to implement rules limiting the advertising of unhealthy food aired during broadcasting directed to children.  The Commissioners’ responses uniformly indicate the potential for regulation, depending in part on the outcome of the activities of the industry Task Force formed at the initiation of, and with the participation by, the FCC and Congress. See our reports on the formation of the Task Force, here.  The Commissioners all note that should the Task Force fail to conclude that the industry has achieved satisfactory results through self-regulation, FCC proceedings might be required to insure that children are not unduly exposed to junk food advertisements. 

Two commissioners, Chairman Martin and Commissioner Tate, responded jointly, and indicated that the FCC could explore regulation of unhealthy food, perhaps looking at guidelines adopted in other countries as a model for US regulation.  These Commissioners’ statement even address the issue of regulating children’s programming on cable television networks, where they claim that there is much exposure to ads for junk food.  These statements make clear that this is not just an issue for the broadcast industry.Continue Reading Commission Responds to Congressional Inquiry on Children’s Junk Food Ads

The FCC recently released a decision granting two waivers of its requirement that any communications tower which has lighting requirements and is registered with the FCC be visually inspected at least quarterly to insure that all of the required lights are working. The waivers were granted to American Tower Corporation and Global Signal, Inc., both operators of…

The battle over performance royalties for broadcast stations seems to have been officially joined. We wrote last week about the rumors of a coalition of record companies and musicians that was reportedly forming to lobby Congress to enact a performance royalty on broadcast radio for the use of sound recordings, and the NAB’s immediate reaction, writing a letter to Congress to oppose the new royalty. Now, the press reports that the pro-royalty group has responded with their own letter to every Congressman, asking that immediate action take place to impose the royalty. Two letters in one week indicate that this summer may be a hot one for broadcasters on Capitol Hill.

The royalty being discussed would be one new to broadcast radio in the United States, but one well known to non-broadcast digital music providers such as Internet radio – as it is the same royalty that has been the subject of so much controversy since the Copyright Royalty Board released its Internet radio royalty decision in early March, more than doubling between 2005 and 2010 the royalty that those stations pay for the use of sound recordings. The royalty on the use of sound recordings (the song as recorded by a particular artist) is in addition to the royalties that are paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the underlying musical composition. So, if imposed, this would be a new royalty for US terrestrial broadcasters.Continue Reading The Battle is Joined on the Performance Royalty for Over the Air Broadcasting

Two long awaited broadcast items seem to be missing in action at the FCC. Both the final rules on digital radio ("HD radio") and the Commission’s Notice of Proposed rulemaking on using FM translators to fill in gaps of the signals of AM stations, while expected quite a while ago, have still not been released by the FCC. The digital radio item, adopting rules on digital radio, eliminating the need to file for experimental authority for multi-channel FM operations and allowing AM stations to operate digitally at night, was adopted by the FCC at its meeting in March, yet the final text of the decision still hasn’t been released.  As the text has not been released, the effective date of the new rules has not been set.  Those AM stations ready to kick on their nighttime digital operations continue to wait.

As we explained in our previous posting on this matter, here, the digital radio order also contains a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, addressing issues such as the public interest obligations of broadcasters on their multicast digital channels. That was one of the items that was supposedly delayed the action that finally occurred at the March meeting, and perhaps it is delaying the release of the text of the order in this proceedingContinue Reading Radio Items Missing In Action at the FCC

While the FCC continues its series of public hearings on possible revisions to its multiple ownership rules, the issue of newspaper-broadcast cross ownership is now squarely before the FCC in a number of proceedings. For instance, in the applications proposing a transfer of control of the Tribune Company, waiver requests have been filed in the markets where the company owns both newspaper and broadcast properties.  These markets include some of the largest television markets in the country including Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.  As the current rules prohibit the ownership of a daily paper and either a radio or television station in the same market, Chicago, where Tribune owns radio, TV and newspaper properties and has done so for many years, asks for waivers for both stations.  The FCC just designated the application for transfer of control of the Tribune Company as a permit but disclose proceeding, meaning that parties can talk to the FCC decision makers about the case, as long as they file a written disclosure statement with the FCC for inclusion in the record of the case.

 Also, press reports note that the petitions to deny have been filed against applications for the renewal of Fox’s television stations in New York, arguing that the combination of  Fox’s television stations in the market with the ownership of the New York Post is not in the public interest.

Seemingly, the proposed purchase of the Wall Street Journal by News Corporation, the owners of Fox,  if it were to ever come to fruition, would at least be reviewed by the FCC, as the Journal is published in New York, where Fox owns television stations.  However, FCC precedent established when Gannett purchased a Washington, DC TV station, in the same market where USA Today is published, would seem to set a precedent for the treatment of a specialized national newspaper like the Journal. While published in New York, the Journal really is national in scope – and not focused on local news, sports, entertainment or advertisers in the same manner that a local newspaper would be.  Continue Reading Debate Over Newspaper-Broadcast Cross Ownership Rule Heats Up

As we have written, here and here, the FCC recently commenced a proceeding to determine if it should adopt rules to require analog cable systems to carry digital television stations after the digital television conversion is complete in 2009.  The proceeding is also to determine what a cable system must do to ensure that there is…

In recent years, patent issues have arisen in many areas affecting online media.  In a recent decision, the Supreme Court decided that lower Courts have more discretion to review whether a patent should be rejected for "obviousness."  To be valid, a patent must cover some degree of innovation, and should not be simply an…

The Internet Radio Equality Act was introduced in the Senate today by Senators Wyden and Brownback.  The Bill tracks the substance of the Bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Inslee and Manzullo.  The Senate Bill in addition includes broader provisions providing relief to large noncommercial webcasters who were not specifically addressed by…

A story in the Hollywood Reporter indicates that a coalition of record companies and associations representing performing artists are preparing to initiate a Congressional lobbying effort to push for a royalty for performance rights in sound recordings that would apply to broadcasters’ over-the-air transmissions, not just their Internet streams.  Broadcasters currently pay performance royalties  to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for their over-the-air music programming – royalties that are paid to composers (or music publishing companies) for the use of the underlying musical composition.  Digital operators (satellite radio, Internet radio, digital cable radio) pay royalties for the composition and also pay royalties for the sound recording, i.e. the actual performance as recorded on a record, CD, or digital download.  The copyright for the sound recording is usually held by a record company.  The performance right in a sound recording did not exist in the United States until 1995, and still applies only to digital transmissions.  Obviously, if extended to broadcasting, this could result in huge expenses to broadcasters – amounts for which they probably have not planned.

This is not the first time that such a royalty has been mentioned.  In introducing the PERFORM Act earlier this year, Senator Feinstein of California suggested that this legislation, which makes certain changes in the digital royalty standards that apply to various services as well as to other copyright license provisions, was only a first step in clarifying royalty issues.  In statements made at the time, there were indications that she favored further legislation to adopt a sound recording performance right for broadcasters.  At last week’s Future of Music Conference, David Carson, General Counsel of the Copyright Office, also spoke in favor of such a right – suggesting that if SoundExchange collected money from broadcasters they might not need to seek so much from Internet Radio companies (see our coverage of the Internet radio royalty issues, here).

Continue Reading Lobbying Effort to Make Broadcasters Pay Sound Recording Royalties in the Works?