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

The FCC’s Media Bureau this week issued a Public Notice announcing the rules for filing applications for new Low Power FM stations during a filing window that will open on November 1 and close on November 8, 2023 at 6 PM EST.  As part of that announcement of the rules for the preparation and processing of applications to be submitted in the filing window, the Media Bureau stated that a freeze on the filing of applications for changes in the facilities of FM translators and existing LPFM stations would go into effect on September 1, 2023.  Thus, if you are planning any technical changes to any FM translator, or any change in an existing LPFM, file before midnight EST on August 31, 2023 to avoid processing delays.  The freeze will be in effect at least until the end of the LPFM filing window on November 8, 2023. 

The freeze is meant to provide a stable database so that applicants in the LPFM window can accurately determine where there are available channels, and where there are stations or applications that need to be protected from interference.  The Public Notice emphasizes that LPFM applications must protect all existing FM stations, all FM translators and LPFMs, and all translator and LPFM applications filed and accepted by the FCC by the end of August before the freeze goes into effect.

Continue Reading Looking at the Rules for the November Window for Filing for New LPFM Stations – and the September 1 Freeze on Changes in Existing FM Translator and LPFM Facilities

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision last week rejecting all of the appeals of the decision by the Copyright Royalty Board (“CRB”) setting the rates that noninteractive webcasters pay to SoundExchange for the digital public performance of sound recordings in the period 2021-2025 (see our article here on the 2021 CRB decision).  As detailed below, the Court rejected appeals from three parties, two that argued that the rates were set too high for specific classes of webcasters, and one from SoundExchange itself which argued that the rates should have been even higher.

As a reminder, the CRB rates apply to all companies who provide a non-interactive, internet-delivered steam of programming which includes recorded music or other audio content, including broadcasters who simulcast their over-the-air programming on the internet.  Congress established the process of setting rates through hearings by the CRB so that noninteractive webcasters would have access to all recorded and publicly released audio recordings without having to individually negotiate with each copyright holder (see our article here about the CRB’s responsibilities).  Services pay these “statutory royalties” to SoundExchange, observe certain requirements that limit how often particular recordings are played so as to not make the services a substitute for buying recordings or listening to them through on-demand services (which pay higher royalties negotiated directly with the copyright holder), and report to SoundExchange what they play.  SoundExchange collects the royalties and uses the reports of what the services played to distribute the royalties they collect.  One-half of the royalties collected go to the performers on the sound recording, and one-half to the copyright holders of the recording, usually the record labels that own the copyrights for sound recordings.

Continue Reading Court Rejects Appeals of Copyright Royalty Board Decision on 2021-2025 Webcasting Royalties

August may be a light month for regulatory dates, as everyone enjoys the end of the summer with many, including Congress, taking the last of their summer vacations.  But there are still dates to which broadcasters should be paying attention.  One that most commercial broadcasters should be anticipating is the order that will set the amount of their Annual Regulatory Fees, to be paid sometime in September before the October 1 start of the federal government’s new fiscal year.  Sometime in August (or possibly in the first days of September), the FCC will make a final determination on the amount of the fees, and then announce the deadlines for the payment of the fees.  As we wrote here, the FCC has proposed to decrease fees for broadcasters from the amounts paid in prior years, but there have been some comments filed in opposition to that proposal. An Order concerning regulatory fees is currently on circulation among FCC Commissioners, so watch for the FCC decision making a final determination on those fees.

August has other routine regulatory deadlines.   August 1 is the deadline for Radio and Television Station Employment Units in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin with 5 or more full-time employees to upload to their online public inspection file their Annual EEO Public File Report. A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area having at least one common employee.  For employment units with 5 or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.  A link to the uploaded report must also be included on the home page of each station’s website, if the station has a website. 

Continue Reading August Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters:  Reg Fee Order, EEO filings, HD Power Increase Proposal, and More
  • On July 28, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion rejecting appeals
…

Last week, at its regular monthly open meeting, the FCC resolved an issue that has been pending for years – what to do about Low Power TV stations operating on Channel 6 that use their audio to provide a radio service that can be heard on most radios at 87.7 -below the 88.1 official start of the FM dial, but still accessible on most FM radios.  The Report and Order dealing with this issue also resolved, at least for the time being, two other issues related to TV channel 6.  First, the FCC rejected a proposal to use channel 6 spectrum for FM radio in areas of the country where the spectrum is not being used for TV purposes.  The other issue that was resolved, at least temporarily, was a proposal to modify or abandon the protections that noncommercial educational (NCE) stations operating in the reserved NCE band (between 88.1 and 91.9 on the FM dial) must provide to nearby TV stations operating on channel 6.  While LPTVs providing FM service may have received the most attention in the trade press since the adoption of the order, those other two issues may actually have broader significance, and received less attention, so it is worth looking at all of the issues resolved by the FCC’s order. 

The Franken FMs, or “FM6” stations as the FCC referred to them, have been in existence for well over a decade (see, for instance, our articles here and here).  The “Franken FM” moniker was adopted seemingly because the service provided by these stations was stitched together from the use of LPTV stations that were in many markets all but dead economically, to provide a radio service that, in some cases, was quite vibrant.  Until 2021, the service from these stations was just a byproduct of analog TV’s use of an audio transmission standard compatible with FM radio on TV channel 6 spectrum, which is immediately adjacent to the bottom of the FM band.  In other parts of the world, FM extends below 88.1 so most FM receivers can be tuned to 87.7, the frequency on which these LPTV stations send their audio signals.  But when the July 2021 deadline came for LPTV stations to go fully digital, the analog FM audio was no longer part of their transmissions, so these stations had to come up with a hybrid system that transmitted their video signals (and the audio accompanying that video programming) in a digital format, but allowed the audio FM signals to also be transmitted in an analog format that FM radios could still receive.  The FCC allowed a limited number of stations to provide this hybrid service in conjunction with their conversion to ATSC 3.0 TV transmissions after their digital conversion, but until the recent order, only on a special temporary authority (STA) basis with a number of restrictions.  The recent order makes these station’s operations permanent, and lifts many of the restrictions.

Continue Reading TV Channel 6 – FCC Resolves Franken FM and Broader Questions of FM Use, But Issues About Interference from Reserved Band FM Stations Remain

The FCC last week released a Public Notice reminding TV stations and other video programming providers, including cable and satellite television providers, of their obligation to make emergency information accessible for all viewers.  With a few tweaks, the reminder is very similar to what the FCC has issued in past years.  This year, the reminder added smoke from Canadian wildfires as a possible emergency about which stations might be distributing important safety information, joining a list that was only two years ago updated to include pandemics.  The FCC notice is to remind video providers of their obligations to make emergency information accessible to all of their audience, even those with visual or auditory disabilities. 

The FCC notice, in addition to wildfires and pandemics, provides examples of the kinds of emergencies that the rules are intended to cover – including “tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tidal waves, earthquakes, icing conditions, heavy snows, widespread fires, discharge of toxic gases, widespread power failures, industrial explosions, civil disorders, school closings and changes in school bus schedules resulting from such conditions, and warnings and watches of impending changes in weather.”  The Commission considers the “critical details” about such emergencies to include “specific details regarding the areas that will be affected by the emergency, evacuation orders, detailed descriptions of areas to be evacuated, specific evacuation routes, approved shelters or the way to take shelter in one’s home, instructions on how to secure personal property, road closures, and how to obtain relief assistance.”

Continue Reading FCC Reminder About Conveying Emergency Information in an Accessible Manner to All TV Audience Members
  • Around this time of year, the FCC typically issues a Public Notice reminding TV broadcasters, cable operators, satellite television services,
…

Stories about “deepfakes,” “synthetic media,” and other forms of artificial intelligence being used in political campaigns, including in advertising messages, have abounded in recent weeks.  There were stories about a superPAC running attack ads against Donald Trump where Trump’s voice was allegedly synthesized to read one of his tweets condemning the Iowa governor for not supporting him in his Presidential campaign.  Similar ads have been run attacking other political figures, prompting calls from some for federal regulation of the use of AI-generated content in political ads.  The Federal Election Commission last month discussed a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the public interest group Public Citizen asking for a rulemaking on the regulation of these ads.  While the FEC staff drafted a “Notification of Availability” to tell the public that the petition was filed and to ask for comments on whether the FEC should start a formal rulemaking on the subject, according to an FEC press release, no action was taken on that Notification.  A bill has also been introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to require that there be disclaimers on all political ads using images or video generated by artificial intelligence revealing that they were artificially generated (see press release here).

These federal efforts to require labeling of political ads using AI have yet to result in any such regulation, but a few states have stepped into the void and adopted their own requirements.   Washington State recently passed legislation requiring the labeling of AI-generated content in political ads.  Some states, including Texas and California, already provide penalties for deepfakes that do not contain a clear public disclosure when used in political ads within a certain period before an election (Texas, within 30 days and California within 60 days).

Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence in Political Ads – Legal Issues in Synthetic Media and Deepfakes in Campaign Advertising – Concerns for Broadcasters and Other Media Companies

While there are certainly policy issues throughout the media industry, it is often the small, routine issues that trip up broadcasters.  In the last week, there have been two public notices worth noting – one announcing the final transition of broadcast applications to the LMS database, and a second reminding broadcasters that Biennial Ownership Reports…