Photo of David Oxenford

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.

In several recent actions, the FCC has imposed severe fines on broadcast licensees for operating auxiliary facilities without a license.  These actions highlight the importance of insuring that your broadcast stations have all of the licenses that they need to operate the technical facilities that they are using. 

In a decision issued today, the FCC fined a Regent radio station $7000 for failing to file a required form on a timely basis and for operating an FM translator station without authority.  According to the decision, Regent had inadvertently failed to include the translator on the renewal application for the main station.  Seven months later, it discovered the oversight, filed the renewal, and requested temporary authority to continue to operate the station.   The Commission imposed a fine of $3000 for failing to timely file the renewal, and $4000 for operating for the 7 months without authority.

Two weeks ago, the FCC released another Notice of Apparent Liability, proposing a $6600 fine for the late filing of two renewal applications for earth stations used by a public television licensee.  One renewal was filed about 2 months late, the second about 2 years late.  The FCC again imposed fines both for the late-filing, and for the operation without authorizations for the operation during the period after the licenses had expired and before the late renewals and STA requests were submitted.Continue Reading FCC Gets Tough on Forgetful Licensees

For the last 10 years, since the liberalization of ownership rules under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the broadcast industry has been in the process of putting together cross-market platforms in radio, television and newspapers in markets across the country.  In the flap over media ownership that began with the FCC’s 2003 multiple ownership decision, and which continues through the current proceeding, media critics have sought the shrinking of big media companies, which they hold responsible for everything from violence and indecency on the airwaves to the lack of new music on radio.  Now, suddenly, 2006 has brought a restructuring of big media, without any government intervention whatsoever.  What impact will this restructuring have on the current proceeding?

The announcement by Clear Channel Communications that it is being sold, and at the same time it’s selling all of its television stations and over 400 of its radio stations in 90 smaller markets, is but the most recent example of that emerging trend.  CBS, which itself was split off from Viacom, is in the process of selling off a number of its radio properties in smaller markets.  ABC also has a deal to sell off the bulk of its radio properties, and announced in its comments in the current multiple ownership proceeding that it did not care what the FCC did, as it had no intent of acquiring any additional broadcast stations or newspaper properties.  Similarly, Tribune is exploring strategic options that reportedly include splitting its broadcast and newspaper properties.  The New York Times has also announced that its exploring spinning off its television properties.

All of this unforced media divestiture should have an impact on the current multiple ownership proceeding.  On a practical level, who is going to push for the current proceeding to be completed?  Many of the players who were active in the past no longer seem like they will care about the outcome of this proceeding, and others seem like they will be preoccupied, at least in the short term, with their business deals.  While the FCC has announced the scheduling of its second field hearing (in Nashville on December 11), it still has 4 more promised hearings to hold at some point in the future.  Unless these are scheduled quickly, and without the big players pushing the FCC to move quickly, the decision could easily drag.  

So who is left to actively push the FCC to reach a decision in this proceeding?  On the TV side, Fox and Sinclair seem likely to be the most active proponents of great deregulation – and, based on past history, most likely to pursue court actions to obtain ownership relief if the FCC does not move quickly on the current proceeding.  Gannett and the Journal Corporation own newspaper and TV stations and may push for more relief.  Clear Channel had been the major proponent of further radio deregulation.  Will their activity continue?

Continue Reading 2006 – Shrinking Big Media – Without Ownership Reform

In Today’s New York Times, a columnist concludes that the FCC’s multiple ownership proceeding is "yesterday’s news."  Looking at the Tribune Company’s recent financial issues and possible sale, the column asks whether anyone should really care about ownership issues in the light of the rapid changes in the media landscape brought about by the digital revolution.  Whether or not anyone cares, the changes in media competition, and potentially in the political landscape after next week’s election, may well mean that there will be no significant ownership reform for quite some time, perhaps not until 2009 – after the next Presidential election.

The Times column talks about Tribune’s discussions of selling off its television stations as part of a financial restructuring.  (The article does not mention that the New York Times itself is considering the sale of its television stations).  Tribune has certainly been one of the parties pushing newspaper-television cross-ownership relief.  As they look at restructuring, will they pay attention to the FCC’s proceedings?  And Clear Channel was one of the parties in the forefront of attempts to further loosen radio ownership restrictions.  They, too, are reportedly considering a financial restructuring or sale.  Will these actions distract two of the most active proponents of relaxing the ownership rules?

In the comments in this proceeding filed last week, ABC Disney essentially took itself out of the proceeding saying that they did not advocate changes in the ownership rules, as they are selling their primary radio assets, are out of newspapers, and are investing in new technologies to get their message out.  With the opportunities of the Internet distribution of video and audio programming, are there other broadcasters, anxious to own more traditional media, who will take the lead in this proceeding?  With over-the-air digital radio and digital television both offering multicast opportunities, do these technologies themselves take some of the urgency out of ownership relief?  Continue Reading Multiple Ownership – Still Relevant?

Entering the last full week before the mid-term elections, broadcasters need to beware of the political broadcasting issues that can arise in the tail end of the campaign season.  With the media expecting political ads to get even dirtier in these final days (see, for instance, the Washington Post’s article yesterday – The Year of Playing Dirtier), potential liability looms for broadcasters if they run unfounded third-party attack ads (see our October 18 posting on Dealing With Issue Ads).  But there are other issues of concern.

In this hot political season, in states with closely contested races, equal opportunities requirements can cause advertising inventory concerns during these last days.  When writing new orders for candidate advertising time in these last days, be sure to factor in buys by political opponents who will be entitled to demand equal opportunities – to be provided before the election.  Remember that reasonable access does not demand unlimited access, only what is reasonable under the circumstances.  In determining what is reasonable, a station can look at inventory concerns, as well as the potential for equal opportunities demands from other candidates.  So remember to save room for those equal opportunities requests.Continue Reading Last Minute Political Issues for the Campaign’s Closing Days

According to the agenda for its meeting to be held on Friday, November 3, the FCC will finally adopt changes to its rules on FM allotment procedures and on changes in the city of license of broadcast stations.  The FCC issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding in June 2005.  This proceeding includes a proposal to make a city of license change a "minor change," which would not require a rulemaking for FM stations, and would not require a window filing for AM stations.  This could speed the processing of such changes, allowing stations to upgrade and otherwise improve their facilities.

The proceeding also deals with a number of other procedural issues, including whether a station should be allowed to change its city of license if it is the only station licensed to a community (generally prohibited under current rules), and whether the proponent of a new FM allotment should be required to file its Form 301 application for a construction permit (and pay the required filing fee) at the same time as it files a Petition seeking the new allotment (intended to encourage only serious applicants for new channels).Continue Reading FCC to Consider FM Allotment Changes