While some might think that the business of deregulation is easy, that usually is not the case, as comments on the FCC’s proposals to modify the public notice requirements for broadcast applications make clear. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking about which we wrote here and here, as part of its initiative on the Modernization of Media Regulation, the FCC looked to modify the rules governing public notice that broadcasters must give when they file certain types of broadcast applications – particularly license renewals and applications for the assignment or transfer of broadcast stations. The FCC asked whether the obligations requiring most of these notices to be published in a local newspaper, in addition to being broadcast on the station, could be replaced by giving an online public notice. The Commission even asked if on-air notice was still necessary. The FCC also asked how the rules should be unified, so that the various exceptions and textual differences that apply to different rules could be made simpler to understand. Comments on these proposals were filed last week between the holidays.

While this proposal seems very straightforward, and many of the comments took the sides that one would expect, there were numerous comments that range from support for continued newspaper publication (principally from the newspaper industry), to calls for more detailed on air-announcements from certain public interest groups, to suggestions that the on-air notice be more abbreviated and used to direct listeners and viewers to a more detailed online disclosure. Let’s look at some of the specific comments that were filed. Continue Reading Differing Perspectives on Deregulation – Looking at Comments on FCC’s Proposal to Modify Rules on Public Notice of Broadcast Applications

When the FCC adopted its Report and Order authorizing the “next generation TV” standard ATSC 3.0, it did not resolve all issues, instead leaving a few for further public comment. Notice of the issues raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register just before Christmas, setting February 20 as the deadline for initial comments on the outstanding issues, and March 20 as the deadline for reply comments. What issues are left to be resolved?

In allowing the voluntary transition to ATSC 3.0, the FCC required that stations choosing to transition to the new standard must enter into agreements with another station in their market to remain in the current ATSC 1.0 transmission standard and host a “lighthouse” signal rebroadcasting the primary video signal of the converting station on one of the multicast streams of the host station. The FCC recognized that not all stations would be able to find a partner with a signal covering the converting station’s city of license that could host the lighthouse signal in the old standard, and agreed to consider waivers of that requirement. The Further Notice raises questions as to whether the FCC should issue further guidance on the standards that it will apply to such waiver requests. Continue Reading Comment Dates Set on Unresolved Issues for Next Generation TV ATSC 3.0 Transition – Comments Due By February 20

The holidays are over, and while the regulation never stops, it is time to once again buckle down and look at what is on the horizon for broadcasters. While, in the next few days, we will have our typical look ahead at the broadcast regulatory agenda in Washington for the New Year, we also need to look at more immediate deadlines in the month of January. As we are at the beginning of a calendar quarter, the tenth of the month is the date for broadcasters to add their Quarterly Issues Programs Lists for the just completed quarter to their public file – whether it be the online public file for TV broadcasters and the many radio groups that have already converted to the online file, or into the paper file for those radio broadcasters waiting until the last minute before making the conversion to the online file as required by March 1. These Quarterly Issues Programs lists are the only FCC-required documents showing how a broadcaster has met its public interest obligations to serve their communities and, as we have written many times (see, for instance, here and here), the FCC considers them to be very important, and thus have led to numerous substantial fines for broadcasters who have not met the FCC’s requirements.

TV broadcasters also need to file their Children’s Television Reports with the FCC by the 10th of the month, and place information into their public file about how they complied with the commercial limits on children’s television programming. As we have written before (see our articles here and here), these, too have been the subject of numerous FCC enforcement actions when the Commission becomes aware that the reports were not filed, or were submitted late. So be sure to timely file these reports with the FCC, and place the information about compliance with the commercial limits in your online public file by the deadline. Continue Reading January Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues Programs Lists and Children’s Television Reports, FM Translator Window, Main Studio Rule Change and Streaming Requirements

Recently, we wrote about a proceeding initiated by the Copyright Office to review the reporting obligations of cable and satellite television systems related to the statutory license that permits those systems to carry the programming of local television stations.  Systems must report information including revenue and subscriber information that allow royalties to be computed.  This proceeding also included a section asking for comments on the Copyright Office’s tentative conclusion that the Copyright Act’s definition of a cable system did not extend to online services, like those that had been proposed by Aereo and FilmOn.  See our article here about the Copyright Office’s request for comments.  The Copyright Office has just announced that they are extending the comment period in this proceeding.  Comments are now due March 16, with replies due on April 6, 2018.

The FCC, apparently not in a holiday mood, yesterday released a Notice of Apparent Liability proposing a $13,376,200 fine against Sinclair Broadcast group for alleged violations of the sponsorship identification requirements of Section 317 of the Communications Act and Section 73.1212 of the FCC rules. The FCC alleges that program segments contained in news broadcasts of certain Sinclair stations and certain program-length reports featured stories about the Huntsman Cancer Institute which were not tagged as being sponsored – even though they were broadcast as part of a contract that required that Sinclair air advertising for the Institute and develop programming about the Institute’s activities.

While the amount of the fine is large given the thousands of alleged broadcasts missing the sponsorship tags, the Commission’s basis for the fines are not new. The FCC has previously fined stations for news segments that were sold as part of a commercial package and aired without sponsorship identification tags (see our article here.)  Accepting any consideration, even video footage, from a commercial entity, can be seen by the FCC as consideration requiring sponsorship identification. See, for instance, our article here about one such case. The stand-alone programs that Sinclair argued were identified as having been sponsored were found wanting by the FCC as, while the fact that the programs were sponsored was made clear, the actual sponsor’s name was not explicitly stated in the announcement. The Commission rejected claims that the visual depiction of the Institute’s logo that was shown visually just before the sponsorship announcement, and a welcome from the announcer thanking the audience for joining in the broadcast “from the Huntsman Cancer Institute,” were sufficient to notify the audience as to the sponsor of the broadcast. As in cases we wrote about here and here, the FCC takes a hard line on these cases, requiring that the name of the sponsor, and the fact that they sponsored the programming be presented clearly so that any viewer will know who is sponsoring a broadcast program. Continue Reading Proposed $13,376,200 Fine Illustrates FCC Concern over Sponsorship Identification Issues

The FCC this week announced the filing of two applications seeking broadcast acquisitions by non-US based companies. In one available here, a company controlled by Mexican citizens would go from 25% to 100% ownership and control of a company that owns 2 FM stations in California and Arizona. In another, available here, an Italian company would acquire a number of radio stations in Florida. Each of the FCC notices ask for public comment on the proposed acquisitions.

As we wrote here, early this year, the FCC allowed an Australian couple to acquire a number of US broadcast properties, and (as we wrote here, here and here) the FCC has otherwise liberalized its rules to permit up to 100% foreign ownership of US stations where there would be no security risk to US interests from the purchase of the stations by foreign individuals or companies. This is a dramatic reversal of past precedent restricting “alien” ownership of US broadcast stations, and we have expected more foreign companies to make US investments in broadcast companies. Perhaps these two cases signal a start of a new wave of investment into the US broadcast market.

The FCC yesterday issued a Public Notice announcing the immediate freeze on the filing of minor change applications for LPTV and TV translator stations. This is to stabilize the FCC’s database so that applicants in the upcoming window for the filing of displacement applications by LPTV and TV Translator stations displaced by the incentive auction will have an opportunity to locate new channels on which they can operate. Translators and LPTV stations were displaced both because of the contraction of the TV band after the incentive auction repurposed TV channels above 37 for wireless uses, and because full-power and Class A TV stations were repacked into the remainder of the TV band, in some cases onto channels that would cause destructive interference to the service provided by LPTV and translators which are secondary to full-power TV stations.

The Commission has promised to open a window for the filing of “displacement” applications for LPTV and TV translator stations where they can seek new channels in the core TV band on which they can operate. We wrote about the FCC’s plans for that filing window here. Now that this freeze notice has been issued, we would expect that the dates for the displacement window will be announced shortly. The announcement of those dates is supposed to provide give 60 days’ notice of the opening of the window, and the window is to last 30 days.   If your stations are affected, keep your eyes open during the holidays for announcement of the window dates, which we expect will put the filings in the early part of next year.

Yesterday, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a “Summary Order” that the Court said does “not have precedential effect,” upheld an even briefer decision of the US District Court Judge who oversees the BMI antitrust consent decree, determining that the Department of Justice was wrong in its interpretation of the consent decree requiring that all songs licensed by BMI represent 100% of the musical work. This is a very arcane issue very deep into the nitty-gritty of copyright law – and an issue that we wrote about several times before, including our articles here and here.

The issue arises as many songs are written by several co-writers. Often times, it is simply a composer of the music and someone else who writes the lyrics. But more and more in many musical genres, there are multiple people who receive songwriting credits on any single song. Each of these authors is deemed to have a “fractional interest” in the song. When these multiple authors of a song belong to different performing rights organizations (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR, organizations which authors and their publishing companies join to simplify music licensing to users of lots of music – like radio stations, digital music services, and even bars, restaurants and retail establishments that play music to entertain customers), the issue addressed in this case arises. The question that parties before the court have been debating is whether, when one of these PROs signs a deal with a music user, the user gets the rights to actually perform the song, or whether they simply get the fractional interest in the song that is held by the songwriter who is a member of the PRO, which would require that the user also get the rights to the other fractional interests before the user can play the song. Continue Reading Court of Appeals Upholds BMI Decision Allowing Fractional Music Licensing – What Are the Issues?

The Copyright Royalty Board issued a notice yesterday, here, that summarized its decision on the sound recording performance royalties for 2018-2022 to be paid by Satellite Radio and “Pre-existing Subscription Services” (“PSS”), essentially Music Choice for its music service usually packaged with cable television subscriptions. The terms associated with the new rates, embodied in the new rules adopted by the CRB, are available here. The CRB announcement states that the Sirius XM rates will be 15.5% of revenue, which represents an increase from the 11% they are paying currently. The terms for these rates set out a means by which Sirius XM can reduce the revenue subject to the royalty by directly licensing music or using pre-1972 sound recordings, the percentage of such songs being determined by determining their percentage of play on Sirius XM Internet radio channels that correspond directly to their satellite service.

By contrast, the rates for Music Choice (and any other similar PSS having been established prior to 1998 when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was adopted that may still be in existence) decreased from 8.5% of revenue to 7.5%, the rate that had been in effect in 2012. Our article here describes the decision in 2012 setting the current royalty, and the article here summarizes the Court of Appeals decision upholding the 2012 CRB determination. Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board News – Sirius XM Rates Going Up, Some Cable Radio Rates Going Down, and Webcasting Rate Appeal to Be Argued in February

Early this month, the Copyright Office released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking dealing with two separate but related issues. First, it asks for comments on certain changes in the reporting that cable systems and satellite TV operators provide to the Copyright Office on the programming that they carry – information that is used to provide baseline information for the Copyright Royalty Board to use in its determinations on how the royalties paid by cable systems for the carriage of television stations are distributed to the programmers and content owners that provide programming to the stations.   While certainly the reporting of information used to distribute the royalties paid by cable and satellite for their compulsory license to carry the programming broadcast by TV stations is important, perhaps the more interesting portion of the Notice was the questions that it asked about the definition of a cable system – proposing to adopt the definition of cable systems that exclude Internet-based systems that has been reflected in recent court cases.

We have written about the issue of whether online platforms qualify for the compulsory license to carry television stations many times (see for instance our article here when the issue was first raised by Aereo), when services such as Aereo and FilmOn argued that they could carry television stations on their online platforms without specific consent from the stations as they qualified as cable systems.  These arguments have been consistently rejected by the Courts (see, for instance, our articles here and here) , most recently in the Spring when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the one District Court decision that had found that the argument advanced by FilmOn had merit (see our summary of the Ninth Circuit decision here).  The Copyright Office proposes to adopt that definition. Continue Reading What is a Cable System – The Copyright Office Wants to Know