On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit followed the FCC’s lead in denying the NAB’s request for stay of the requirement for TV stations to post their public inspection files online.  Accordingly, that rule goes into effect on Thursday, August 2, 2012.

Effective that date, TV stations should post all new public file documents online in the FCC database created for this purpose.  Stations will have six months in which to post pre-existing public file documents into that database. The online posting requirement applies to TV stations only…not to radio stations or cable systems.

Posting of the political public file will not be required until July 1, 2014, except for the top four network affiliated stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) in the top 50 markets.  No station will be required to post political file documents created prior to August 2, 2012.

Continue Reading It’s Official: Online Posting of TV Public File Required Beginning August 2nd; FCC Schedules More Demos of System

The FCC has once again proposed a $10,000 fine against a college radio station missing quarterly issues/program lists in the public inpsection file.  This time, the culprit is Rollins College, a small liberal arts college in Florida with 1700 students. 

We know that $10,000 is the "base forfeiture" for failure to maintain a complete public inspection file, and this is not the first time the FCC has proposed this fine for a college radio station.  But we have questioned before whether a $10,000 fine is appropriate for this type of violation and the amount seems even more egregious when it is levied against a small noncommercial educational college radio station.  It is the same fine that would be levied against a major commercial television network station located in New York City for the same violation.

Yes, rules are rules and they should be followed by all FCC licensed broadcast stations.  But as Dave Seyler notes in a thoughtful piece written for Radio Business Report, it may not be in the best interests of the federal government to "siphon money out of our educational system."  In this case, as in other similar cases, the college received no warning following an FCC inspection…just the fine. 

Continue Reading Does $10,000 Fine Make Sense for Small College Radio Station Missing Public File Documents?

The FCC has released its Report and Order showing the annual regulatory fees due for the 2012 fiscal year. Although the due date has not yet been announced, it will likely be in September. The fees are intended to recover the Commission’s cost of operations, reported to be nearly $340 million. 

Fees must be paid by all commercial FCC licensees and permittees as of October 1, 2011 (the first day of the 2012 fiscal year).  In the event of an assignment or transfer of control after that date, fees are to be paid by the current permittees and licensees as of the payment due date in September.  Noncommercial stations and all nonprofit entities are exempt from paying regulatory fees.

Although a summary of fees is shown below, each licensee or permittee will have to check the FCC website to determine the exact amount of fees owed, since the FCC will not be mailing out any notices of fees due.  Fees paid even one day late will be subject to a 25% penalty plus administrative processing charges, so timely payment is critical.  Unlike the IRS which uses the mailing date to determine timeliness, the FCC requires regulatory fees to be received by the due date to avoid late payment penalties.  Licensees or permittees that fail to pay their regulatory fees in full will not be able to get FCC action on any subsequently filed applications pursuant to the Commission’s "red light" policy until all fees and penalties are paid.

Licensees and permittees will be able to pay by wire, credit card, check, money order or debit card, although all payers will need a an FCC Registration Number (FRN) and completed "Fee Filer Form" 159-E prior to filing.

Continue Reading FCC Announces Regulatory Fees Due for FY 2012

 

The FCC has announced that the obligation for television broadcast stations to post their public inspection files online will become effective August 2, 2012, absent a stay requested by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which has appealed the rule to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Absent a stay, the rule requires full power and Class A television stations to post any NEW public file documents online at an FCC-hosted website as of August 2nd.  Those broadcasters will have six months or until February 2, 2013 to post PRE-EXISTING public file documents online. 

The political public file, which is the subject of the NAB appeal, will be treated a bit differently.  NEW political public file documents must be posted effective August 2 by only the top four network affiliated stations (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) in the top 50 markets. There is no requirement to post pre-existing political file documents online.

All other TV stations (i.e. non-network affiliated stations in the top 50 markets and ALL TV stations outside of the top 50 markets), do not have to post political public file documents online until July 1, 2014.

Continue Reading Online Public File Requirement for TV Broadcasters Effective August 2, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari (i.e. declined review) in two important FCC-related cases pending before it.  First, following the Court’s recent decision in the Fox indecency case, which we described here, the Court not surprisingly refused to review the Third Circuit’s decision vacating the $550,000 FCC fine for the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" in the 2004 Super Bowl shown on CBS. 

In the Fox case, the Supreme Court found that the FCC had not provided advance notice that it would prosecute cases of "fleeting" indecency.  That decision essentially predetermined that the Supreme Court would deny review of the Super Bowl incident.  While denying cert., however, Chief Justice Roberts issued an unusual separate opinion, noting that fleeting indecent images may have a more lasting impression than indecent words.  Nevertheless, he noted that going forward, braodcasters are on notice that fleeting indecent words and images are both now subject to FCC sanctions.

 

Continue Reading Supreme Court Declines Review of Janet Jackson “Wardrobe Malfunction” and Multiple Ownership Rules

As you know by now, last week the U.S. Supreme Court found the FCC’s enforcement of its indecency policy unconstitutional in FCC v. Fox.  As Bob Corn-Revere and Ronnie London described in our Advisory , this case concerned the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards shows televised by Fox as well as a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue televised by ABC.  While the Supreme Court did NOT address the First Amendment issue of whether the FCC can constitutionally prohibit fleeting expletives and momentary nudity, it did find that the FCC’s enforcement of those policies with regard to these particular shows violated due process, because the networks had no advance notice of them.

As we noted more than a year ago, there are approximately 300 TV station renewal applications from the last renewal cycle still pending due to indecency complaints filed against them.  It is unclear how many of them relate to these particular shows, but to the extent any renewal applications have been held up due to complaints against these shows only, it should only be a matter of time before those renewal applications are granted.

Continue Reading What does the Supreme Court Indecency Decision Mean for the Long Pending License Renewal Applications?

Since the start of the FCC’s examination of its multiple ownership rules in anticipation of its Quadrennial Review of these rules, the question of TV shared services agreements has been one raised by public interest groups, suggesting that combinations of local TV stations for news or sales purposes are not in the public interest, as such combinations reduce competition in the local markets.  MVPDs have also suggested that these agreements are unfair in the negotiation of retransmission consent agreements.  Television broadcasters, on the other hand, have pointed to the economics of the television business, especially in smaller markets, where combinations of stations are considered necessary to preserve news operations (and in some cases, the operations of the stations themselves) in these markets.  The NY Times featured this issue on its front page, further indicating that this is an issue that is likely to be addressed in the FCC’s decision in its ownership review – expected later this year or in 2013.

The Times report talks about how some SSAs result in newscasts covering similar stories or using the same reports on multiple stations.  While some public interest advocates complain that duplicative news does not serve the public interest, the story also interviews station owners who make the very simple point that economics dictates what stations can do – that without these shared service agreements many stations that have news programs now would not have them at all without a shared services agreement being in place.  Clearly, the media marketplace is changing, and all of the traditional media simply cannot operate in the way that they have in the past, with all of the new forms of competition making changes inevitable (see, e.g. the recent news about the major daily newspaper in New Orleans going to a three times a week publication schedule).  After the FCC’s recent decision on shared services agreements in Hawaii (see our article here), and the front page publicity that the issue has received in the Times, we are bound to see this issue addressed in the FCC’s ownership proceeding whenever that is resolved (we’ve been predicting sometime after the November election – see our article summarizing the proceeding here), and perhaps in orders clarifying the obligations of parties in retransmission consent negotiations, also under consideration by the FCC. 

Does a broadcast station need to book a political ad buy for an agency purporting to be representing a candidate, but refusing to reveal who that candidate is? We’ve recently received this question from a number of broadcast stations in a number of states, as agencies seemingly are jockeying to tie up valuable commercial time in advance of what is likely to be a hotly contested election in November. This seems to be happening particularly with stations that have coverage areas that include parts of certain “swing states” in the Presidential election, or in states with crucial Congressional or Senatorial elections. It seems to us that, unless and until you know that there is a real candidate, there is no obligation for a station to book time for a hypothetical candidate or candidate to be named later.

Booking time for an unknown candidate raises numerous issues for a station. How can a station account for the sale of that time in its political file? If it doesn’t know who the candidate is, it can’t place the required information (which includes the candidate’s name) into the political file. Booking time for a political candidate gives rise to equal opportunities obligations, even outside the 45 and 60 days political windows. How can you determine to whom you owe equal time when the station itself doesn’t even know who the candidate is? And, if the agency even refuses to reveal if it is a Federal or state campaign for which it plans to buy time, making time available to an agency on behalf of an unknown candidate that turns out to be a state candidate may cause the station, through the application of equal opportunities, to have to sell time for a race to which it did not intend to provide access, or to open up dayparts to that state race when it did not intend to offer those dayparts to state candidates. In fact, without knowing the candidate, how can the station assess whether the candidate is legally qualified, or that the time is being purchased by an authorized candidate committee? 

Continue Reading What is a Broadcaster to Do When Approached by an Ad Agency Buying Time for an Undisclosed Political Candidate?

Last month, we wrote about the proposed settlement on "mechanical royalties" under Section 115 of the Copyright Act. These royalties are paid when "reproductions" are made of a musical composition.  In the analog world, these were most commonly paid by a record company to a music publisher for the rights to use a musical composition when one of its bands records the song controlled by the publisher. The recent settlement, entered into between the music publishers’ representatives, the recording industry, and a digital media industry association, covers everything from physical recordings, to digital downloads, ringtones, and other "digital phonorecord deliveries" made by on-demand and other digital music services.  The text of the settlement agreement, giving all of the details of the proposed rates for the various types of digital services, is now available for public review, as it has been published in the Federal Register as part of the request for comments by the Copyright Royalty Board.  Comments on these proposals are due on June 18.