As most readers of this blog know, I practice law with Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP in Washington DC. This past weekend, the firm moved its offices a few blocks down the road, and is now operating in a great new space at the following address: 1800 M Street NW, Suite 800N, Washington, DC, 20036. So if you send us any physical deliveries, or stop in to say hello, make sure that you use the new address. Phone and email addresses remain the same. Now, to unpack the boxes…..

A proposal to allow AM station licensees to buy FM translators located as far as 250 miles away from the AM station and move them to an area where they can rebroadcast the AM station was the talk of the NAB Radio Show last week.   With battling news releases from FCC Commissioners (one from Commissioner Pai supporting an immediate translator window during which AM licensees would have an exclusive right to file for new FM translators, and a subsequent one from Commissioner Clyburn where she indicates her belief that the 250 mile proposal was the quickest way to bring translators to AM licensees), this proposal seems to have replaced the proposed translator window restricted to AM owners that had been proposed in the AM revitalization order introduced by the FCC about 2 years ago (see our summary of the initial proposal for an AM window here, and a discussion of the controversy over that window here and here). What does this proposal entail?

While the precise rules that are being considered by the Commission are unclear as they have not been released for public comment, from comments made in the public statements released by FCC Commissioners last week, other comments made by FCC staffers at the Radio Show, and stories reported by the trade press, it appears that the FCC is considering allowing any AM licensee to buy a translator located within 250 miles of their AM station and, as a one-step minor change application, to move the translator onto any channel that fits in the AM station’s market.  An AM licensee buys the translator authorization – and it basically gives that licensee the right to file for a vacant frequency in its market on a first-come, first-served basis.  Continue Reading Moving FM Translators 250 Miles to Rebroadcast an AM Station – What the FCC is Considering as Part of Its AM Revitalization Proceeding

A month ago, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking looking to reassess the requirement that broadcasters and MVPDs (cable and satellite television) engage in “good faith” negotiations over the retransmission consent necessary for the MVPD to rebroadcast the signal of a broadcast television station, triggering numerous questions throughout the industry (and among financial analysts who follow the television industry) as to what that release meant. On Friday, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register, setting the dates for the filing of comments on the questions raised by the Commission. Comments are due on December 1, and Reply Comments on December 31. Given that this may well be the same period of time in which TV stations are preparing their initial applications for the incentive auction, and given that the reply falls in the middle of the holidays, don’t be surprised if requests for an extension of these comment dates are filed.

But no matter the dates on which comments are filed, this proceeding obviously raises a number of important issues. While many industry analysts wondered if, by the very fact that the Notice was released, it signaled the FCC’s intent to “go after” broadcasters in their retransmission consent dealings – perhaps as a way to encourage them to participate in the incentive auction by threatening the revenue from the retransmission consent fees that they now receive. But what most of these observers fail to note is that the release of the NPRM by September 1 was actually not the initiated by the FCC Commissioners. Instead, the action was mandated by Congress when it adopted STELAR, the law that extended the right of satellite television companies to retransmit the signals of local television stations. That legislations included many required actions and studies (see our summary here), including the requirement that this NPRM be started by September 1. Thus, the Commission actually waited as long as it could in releasing this rulemaking order. Continue Reading Dates Set for Comments on Good Faith Negotiation of Retransmission Consent Agreements – What is the FCC Asking?

The legal issues surrounding the use of music in broadcast and digital media is one of those topics that is usually enough to make eyes glaze over.  The importance of understanding these issues is illustrated by this week’s request from the Department of Justice for more information about the rights of songwriters to authorize ASCAP and BMI (often referred to as Performing Rights Organizations or PROs) to license their works to services like radio stations and webcasters when there are multiple songwriters who may not all be members of the same rights organization.  While we try to provide some explanations of some of those issues on this Blog, I wanted to point to a couple of other resources available to address some of these issues and to, hopefully, help make some of those issues understandable.

First, I wanted to note that I’ll be moderating a panel on current music issues at the NAB Radio Show in Atlanta on Thursday afternoon (the panel is described here) featuring representatives of the NAB, RIAA, BMI, Pandora and the Copyright Office.  Hopefully, we’ll be able to unpack some of the motivations and directions of the music royalty debates that are going on in Washington DC.  For those of you not able to make that panel, and even those of you who are planning to attend, a new source of information that provides a very good summary of the many music licensing issues now being considered by Congress and the courts is a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service released last week, available here.  The report explains in relatively simple terms how music licensing works in the United States, and describes many of the current legislative and judicial issues that currently could affect that licensing.  While obviously not addressing all of the subtleties of the arguments of all of the parties to these proceedings, the report does at least give a relatively neutral summary of the arguments of the parties. Continue Reading Understanding Music Royalties – Congressional Research Service Releases Summary of the Law, While DOJ Asks for More Comments on ASCAP and BMI Consent Decree Reform

October is one of those months where the regulatory stars align, when not only do broadcasters in many states have EEO Public File report obligations, but also Quarterly Issues Programs Lists need to be placed in the public files of all commercial and noncommercial stations, and Quarterly Children’s Television Reports need to be filed at the FCC and placed in the public files of television stations.  On top of these routine obligations, there are a number of actions likely to be taken by the FCC that may affect many segments of the broadcast industry.  So let’s look at some of the specifics.

First, by October 1, EEO public file reports should be placed in the public file of stations with 5 or more full-time employees, if those stations are located in the following states and territories: Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, the Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands.  In addition to those obligations, radio stations that are part of employment units with 11 or more full-time employees and are located in the states of Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands must prepare and file with the FCC EEO Mid-Term Reports on FCC Form 397, submitting specifics of their employment practices in the last two years (through the submission of their Public File reports) as well as some additional information.  The Mid-Term report for those stations are due by October 1.  More information about these EEO obligations can be found in our article here. Continue Reading October Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Many Routine Filings for All Broadcasters, Incentive Auction Actions, and More

The FCC’s Media Bureau this week released a decision denying the license applications of five new FM stations, and cancelling the construction permits for those stations. While the principal reasons for the denial of the license applications was the failure of the applicant to complete the applications correctly after the several deadlines imposed by the FCC, the decision also issued another reminder to broadcasters that they cannot construct temporary facilities to meet a construction deadline, and then dismantle those facilities soon after filing the license application. As in the case earlier this year that we wrote about here, the Bureau is expecting that stations will turn on their stations for the purposes of operating and serving the people within their service area when they seek their licenses. They cannot turn on the station simply for the purposes of filing for the license, and then dismantle the facilities and turn the station back off the air.

The decision also makes clear that license applications (on Form 302, and on Form 350 for translators) cannot be filed only partially complete on a deadline date. The Bureau states that the permittee must construct the station and file a license application demonstrating proper construction in a timely fashion. The applicant cannot file a bare bones application, and then file supplemental information demonstrating post-construction meeting of permit conditions (like demonstrating compliance with RF radiation limits, or compliance with the main studio rules). So, if you are facing a construction deadline, be sure to plan early so that you can meet the deadline, have the station operating properly in compliance with all conditions by the deadline date, and then file a complete application by the deadlines specified in the construction permit and in the FCC’s rules.

A decision that noncommercial broadcasters should note was released by the Commission last week. The decision was one that upheld a 2012 consent decree where, to resolve objections against the sale of a noncommercial radio station owned by the University of San Francisco, the Media Bureau imposed a fine of $50,000 for a pre-sale LMA which paid the licensee more than the costs of the operation of the station (we wrote about that case and a similar case resolved earlier this year, here). While last week’s decision did not tread any new ground, the fact that the full Commission upheld a determination that a $50,000 fine was an appropriate sanction for a noncommercial station that entered into an LMA that paid it more than its out-of-pocket expenses reinforces the importance of assessing the consideration paid to any noncommercial broadcaster for the sale of programming time on their stations. A noncommercial station can accept funds sufficient to reimburse it for the costs of its operations during the time that the program aired, but it cannot receive more than that reimbursement in the way of compensation for programming time.

As we wrote in January following the release by the FCC of a similar decision, with a similar fine, in another case where a noncommercial licensee was paid more than its expenses by an LMA programmer, the FCC does not want noncommercial stations to be looked at as revenue generating operations for their licensees. If the station is paid for programming, any payments should simply cover station expenses. Last week’s decision looked at other issues too. Continue Reading FCC Upholds $50,000 Penalty for Noncommercial LMA Where Licensee Paid More than its Operational Expenses

The FCC yesterday agreed to modernize its contest rules, allowing broadcasters to publicize the material terms of a contest that is conducted by a station through posting those rules on an Internet website, rather than requiring that the material rules be read on the air often enough so that a listener is likely to have heard them. The FCC’s order does impose obligations that the website location be announced on the air and that the site be accessible to everyone, but the changes, once they go into effect, will be a relief to many broadcasters who have had so much trouble in recent years with the current rules requiring on-air disclosure of a contest’s material terms (see, for instance, the many fines that have been issued to broadcasters for violations of these rules, about which we wrote here, here and here).

When these new rules go into effect (after approval by the Office and Management and Budget after a Paperwork Reduction Act review – an exercise that the FCC must go through for all new rules with any paperwork requirements even though it would seem to be a formality here where the rules clearly work to reduce the burden on broadcasters), a broadcaster will be able to satisfy the requirement to disclose the material rules of a contest either by continuing the old practice of reading the material rules on the air, or by posting those rules to an accessible website, and publicizing the Internet location of those rules on the air. The website hosting the rules can either be the station website or some other site, but the rules state that the site must be available to everyone who visits it without having to register to use the site or to pay any sort of fee to access the site. The on-air announcement about the website does not need to give the exact URL of the page on which the rules can be found, as long as the announcement is specific enough so that a listener will be able to find the rules (e.g. by saying something like “go to the K-100 website, k100.com, and click on the ‘contest’ tab”). The FCC also makes clear that, if a station is sending its audience to the station’s homepage to find the contest rules, that there should be a tab, link or other clearly identified location on the homepage to make clear where listeners should go to find the contest rules. Continue Reading FCC Revises Broadcast Contest Rules – Allows Disclosure of Material Rules on the Internet

An order deciding on the steps the FCC will take to revitalize AM radio is currently being actively considered by the Commissioners. As we wrote earlier this week, the biggest argument about the proposal that is circulating is reportedly whether or not that order will provide for a window for filing for new FM translators specifically to be used for the rebroadcast of AM stations. As we wrote, the FCC Chairman has indicated his opposition to that proposal – and the reasons for that opposition were made clearer in the press conference following yesterday’s open FCC meeting. While AM radio was not on the agenda of the meeting, the Chairman was nevertheless asked about his opposition to the AM-only translator window. His response? He said something along the lines of – Everybody has the right to ask for free spectrum, but it’s not the general policy of this agency to give it away. It seems to me that this cannot be the full reason for his opposition, as the process for awarding FM translators generally results in spectrum being given away for free – and Congress in fact set up the system that way, reserving an auction only as a last resort in the award of FM translators. An AM-only window for FM translators is no more a give-away of free spectrum than is any other translator filing window.

Applications for new FM translators are filed during pre-announced auction filing windows. If, during one of those windows, mutually exclusive applications are filed (applications that, for technical reasons conflict with each other), these applications are not immediately thrown into an auction as would be the case when there are mutually exclusive applications for full-power FM or TV channels. Instead, pursuant to the Congressional authorization for the auctions used to award spectrum to commercial broadcasters, an auction is used for secondary services like FM translators, and for AM stations where there are no pre-allocated channels, only where the applicants cannot themselves first find a solution for their mutual exclusivity. Thus, once applications are filed, the FCC announces a window during which applicants can work together to coordinate modifications to their proposed facilities to attempt to come up with engineering solutions so that both applications can be granted, or to work out other permitted settlements. As a result of the 2003 FM translator window, the FCC has already granted thousands of new FM translators – and none of these applications were granted as the result of an auction (see our articles here, here and here about the grant of these translators). All were either singletons (meaning they were not technically mutually exclusive with any other application) or they were granted after engineering amendments or other settlements resolved their mutual exclusivity. All of the thousands of new FM translators granted after the 2003 window were “free spectrum,” no different than any applications that would be granted following any AM-only translator filing window. Continue Reading More on AM Revitalization – Why the FCC Chairman is Against an AM-Only Filing Window For FM Translators

Last month, we noted that there were a number of upcoming FCC actions on broadcast matters, as revealed in an article on the FCC’s blog. That article, by FCC Chairman Wheeler, promised that an order on the AM revitalization proceeding was in the works. Such an order is in fact circulating among the Commissioners for consideration and has been the subject of a significant amount of lobbying in recent weeks – mostly because the order apparently omits an application filing window exclusively for AM licensees to file for new FM translators to rebroadcast their signals in their service areas.

Based on ex parte filings (letters submitted to the docket file on the AM improvement rulemaking summarizing meetings held by interested parties with FCC Commissioners and other FCC decision-makers), it appears that that order circulating among the Commissioners omits the AM-only translator filing window, in line with the Chairman’s statements back in April that he does not want to set aside a window exclusively for AM stations to file for new FM translators (see our article here).  With the Chairman opposed, the new lobbying seems to be aimed at convincing other Commissioners to support the AM-only window, which many AM operators see as the one sure way to help preserve AM operations for the foreseeable future (perhaps until an all-digital operation becomes feasible). Even though the order apparently does not call for an AM-only window for FM translators, there does seem to be some recognition that translators can assist AMs in their operations. Continue Reading Where Does the FCC’s AM Revitalization Order Stand?