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

Life has been upended for most Americans due to the spread of the coronavirus and that tumult is, of course, reaching broadcasters as it reaches others throughout the country.  As we wrote here, like many agencies and businesses, as part of its COVID-19 response, the FCC has moved most of its workforce to teleworking in an attempt to keep FCC staff and their families safe.  With most FCC forms and filings being submitted electronically, and remote work already being routine for many FCC employees, there should be minimal disruption to broadcasters’ routine daily dealings with the Commission.  Broadcasters should continue to comply with all FCC rules, including meeting filing deadlines, though it does appear that the FCC is willing to be flexible with some deadlines, especially when a broadcaster can point to virus-related reasons that the deadline cannot be met.  Check with your attorney on specific deadlines.  And check our article from yesterday highlighting some issues to consider while preparing for whatever comes next.

While there is much disruption to normal routines, the routines of regulatory life largely carry on.  For instance, before moving on to April deadlines, we should remind TV broadcasters that, if they have not already done so, their first Annual Children’s Television Report is due to be submitted to the Commission by March 30.  See our articles here and here on that new report.
Continue Reading April Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters: The FCC May Be Teleworking, But Regulation Goes On

With more and more states, municipalities, and other authorities issuing shelter-in-place warnings or other restrictions on travel, and with more station facilities likely to be closed temporarily because of exposure to the COVID-19 virus, broadcasters need to be planning on how to continue to operate their facilities in the new world we are all facing.  I participated in an online conference last week with over 100 college broadcasters who are perhaps on the front lines of this problem, as so many operate from campus buildings that were closed early after (and in some cases before) the declaration of the pandemic.  We’ve had calls from many other broadcasters about the issues that they are facing in their operations, as communities take actions to enforce the personal distancing urged by medical organizations.  Many commercial broadcasters may be seeing in the upcoming days greater restrictions on unnecessary travel, perhaps impacting access to their facilities and studios.  Planning and coordination among broadcasters – and with broadcasters and local officials – is already underway in many cities and with many state broadcast associations.  But it also needs to be considered by individual broadcasters everywhere.

One of the most basic questions is one of access.  Questions are arising every day as to whether local officials can block access to broadcast stations or to the coverage of news events during the emergency.  Will broadcasters be shut down like so many other businesses?  There has been much written in the trade press and elsewhere about broadcasters being “essential services” that should be allowed access to their facilities and to news events during any crisis.  There is in fact statutory language in the US code to that effect (see, for instance, this section that tells federal officials not to limit access or facilities to radio and TV broadcasters in an emergency).  But that statute restricts the actions of federal officials to block broadcaster access and is silent as to actions by state and local officials.  Even if state laws have similar provisions, those provisions are only helpful if someone in a position of authority has the time and inclination to look at the legal niceties that apply to a given situation.  Coordination with state and local officials is paramount in a situation like the current one that affects everyone, everywhere.  Stations should already be in touch with state and local authorities to see how they can help in the current crisis.  At the same time, they should also be discussing and planning with these officials to ensure access to studios and transmitter sites, and exemptions from travel restrictions for news coverage, so that they can continue to provide their important services to the public.
Continue Reading Essential Planning for Broadcasters Facing Coronavirus Restrictions on Access to Facilities and News Events

The FCC yesterday issued a Public Notice addressing news sharing or “pooling” agreements between television stations that are coming together as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Stations may be faced with fewer crews to cover local events as infections and self-quarantines take place, and because of the general obligation to maintain physical distancing from other people, no one wants a crowd of camera crews and reporters at every news event.  The FCC’s notice yesterday states that such agreements entered into during the crisis for news sharing do not need to be in writing and do not need to be in the public file – an exemption to the normal obligation to reduce any sharing agreement between TV stations to writing and add it to the online public file.  That obligation exempts “on-the-fly” arrangements during breaking news events and those precipitated by unforeseen or rapidly developing events.  The FCC concluded that pandemic-related agreements fit into that category.

Ordinarily, the obligation to include sharing agreements between TV stations in the public file is a very broad one.  We wrote about that obligation here.  The rule grew out of concerns by the FCC that stations could be using sharing agreements to skirt the FCC’s ownership rule limitations and wanted such agreements to be public so that it, and the public, could review their provisions to determine if any FCC action was necessary.
Continue Reading FCC Issues Guidance on TV News Sharing Agreements During the Pandemic

Despite the telework restrictions in place at the FCC, regulatory life goes on, with the Commission continuing to process applications and deliver decisions every day.  One of those decisions released yesterday clarified the FCC’s rural radio policy, and its application to noncommercial FM stations.  The rural radio policy was adopted a decade ago to preserve program diversity in rural areas by restricting the move of radio stations into more urbanized areas through city of license changes.  The policy restricts rural stations from changing their city of license to a location from which the station could place a principal city contour over 50% of any urbanized area (see our articles here and here for more details on this policy).  The decision yesterday upheld prior decisions in the same proceeding which concluded that, for noncommercial reserved-band stations, the appropriate contour to analyze is the 60 dBu contour.  If that contour would cover more than 50% of an urbanized area after a city of license change, the change will generally be prohibited for any station not now providing such coverage over an urbanized area.

The licensee in this case had argued that this decision was illogical, as the rural radio prohibition for commercial stations is only triggered when the 70 dBu contour covers more than 50% of the urbanized area – not the 60 dBu contour.  The FCC rejected that argument, saying that the policy being advocated was more appropriately raised in a rulemaking, not in an application case like this.  The FCC’s finding in this case would mean that two broadcasters, one commercial and one noncommercial, could propose moves from rural locations to the same new city of license and propose to operate from the exact same antenna with the exact same power levels and height above average terrain, and the noncommercial application would be denied as it would be deemed an application for the urbanized area because its 60 dBu contour covered more than 50% of that area, while the commercial station would be granted as its 70 dBu did not reach 50% of the urbanized area.  Two stations providing exactly the same service to the same urbanized area would be treated differently – one as if it serves the urbanized area, the other as if it would not.
Continue Reading FCC Clarifies Rural Radio Policy for Noncommercial FM Stations as Regulation Goes on Despite Telework Restrictions

In recent days, we have seen Presidential primaries delayed by the coronavirus in at least six states – including Ohio which was originally set to vote yesterday but has postponed its primary until June 2.  We expect that additional states will be looking at extensions in the coming days.  As lowest unit rate windows had…

The repacking of the TV band following the incentive auction is reaching its end – but perhaps not as quickly as anticipated.  Yesterday, the FCC issued “Guidance” to stations in Phase 9 of the repacking indicating that they can request extensions so that their deadline for implementing any repacking obligation would be the…

We’ve heard that some broadcasters are worried about staffing their main studios and allowing the public to visit the studios in this period where the government and health authorities have called for social distancing.  With the elimination of the main studio and studio staffing rules back in 2018 (see our articles here and here),…

As Washington reacts to the coronavirus, there are certainly regulatory implications to broadcasters and other media companies.  The FCC Thursday announced that its headquarters is closed to visitors and that its employees should begin to telework.  Many FCC employees regularly took advantage of telework options before the current situation, so it can be expected that many routine application processing activities (particularly those involving electronically filed applications) should be able to proceed with relatively minimal delays.  What remains to be seen is the ability of the FCC to handle more complex matters that often involve meetings with stakeholders and among FCC staff before decisions are made.  While these too can be handled electronically and telephonically, the speed of FCC actions may well be slower than normal as technological issues are worked out and as the FCC may be called on to address telecommunications matters related to combatting the virus.

The FCC’s Audio Division, on Friday, released a Public Notice describing some special processes it will use in light of the teleworking policy.  First, college and university stations can rely on the FCC rules that exempt these stations from the FCC’s minimum operating schedule during recess periods without the need for a special temporary authority.  The current college shutdowns will be treated as recess periods.
Continue Reading Washington Reacts to the Virus – FCC Closed to Visitors and Its Employees Told to Telework; Audio Division Issues Guidance for Radio Regulatory Filings, and Copyright Office Postpones Webcasting Royalty Trial

The FDA last week issued an update on its review of issues related to the sale and marketing of CBD products.  The guidance reiterates the kinds of warnings that we have given before (see, for instance, our articles here and here) about not advertising specific health benefits of CBD products as, except for two approved CBD-based drugs used to control seizure-related disorders, the FDA has not yet approved other medical uses of CBD products.  The FDA release provides numerous general cautions about the use of CBD products including concerns about their interactions with other drugs and the potential side-effects of their use.

The statement includes only two paragraphs devoted to marketing of CBD products.  In these paragraphs, the FDA discusses the enforcement actions it has taken (see our posts here and here) against companies that provide specific guidance on health benefits of CBD not only because of the fears of side-effects, but also because of the potential for consumers to be led to believe that CBD products should be used to treat medical conditions to the exclusion of other proven therapies.  The warnings about marketing also extended to the concerns about product labeling, including worries about products being claimed to contain CBD that do not or containing other unknown substances not listed on any label.
Continue Reading The FDA Issues New Guidance on CBD – Still Leaving Many Questions for Broadcasters and Advertisers

Notifications about cable carriage have now gone electronic – and contact people at stations and MVPDs for notices about carriage issues are now to be provided in the FCC-hosted online public inspection file and in the Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS).  According to an FCC Public Notice released last week, in those databases…