The FCC today heard from its Future of Media task force, when its head, Steven Waldman presented a summary of its contents at its monthly meeting.  At the same time, the task force issued its 475 page report – which spends most of its time talking about the history of media and the current media landscape, and only a handful of pages presenting specific recommendations for FCC action.  The task force initially had a very broad mandate, to examine the media and how it was serving local informational needs of citizens, and to recommend actions not only for the FCC, but also for other agencies who might have jurisdiction over various media entities that the FCC does not regulate.  Those suggestions, too, were few in the report as finally issued.  What were the big headlines for broadcasters?  The report suggests that the last remnants of the Fairness Doctrine be repealed, and that the FCC’s localism proceeding be terminated – though some form of enhanced disclosure form be adopted for broadcasters to report about their treatment of local issues of public importance, and that this information, and the rest of a broadcaster’s public file, be kept online so that it would be more easily accessible to the public and to researchers.  Online disclosures were also suggested for sponsorship information, particularly with respect to paid content included in news and informational programming.  And proposals for expansion of LPFMs and for allowing noncommercial stations to raise funds for other nonprofit entities were also included in the report. 

While we have not yet closely read the entire 475 page report, which was tiled The Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age, we can provide some information about some of the FCC’s recommendations, and some observations about the recommendations, the process, and the reactions that it received.  One of the most important things to remember is that this was simply a study.   As Commissioner McDowell observed at the FCC meeting, it is not an FCC action, and it is not even a formal proposal for FCC action.  Instead, the report is simply a set of recommendations that this particular group of FCC employees and consultants came up with.  Before any real regulatory requirements can come out of this, in most cases, the FCC must first adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or a series of such notices, and ask for public comment on these proposals.  That may take some time, if there is action on these suggestions at all.   There are some proposals, however, such as the suggestion that certain LPFM rules be adopted in the FCC’s review of the Local Community Radio Act so as to find availability for LPFM stations in urban areas, that could be handled as part of some proceedings that are already underway.

Continue Reading Recommendations from the Future of Media Report: End Localism Proceeding, Require More Online Public File Disclosures of Programming Information, Abolish Fairness Doctrine

The question has recently arisen as to when underwriting announcements can be aired on noncommercial radio and TV stations.  The New York Times recently quoted me on the subject in an article discussing the plans of PBS to experiment with putting underwriting announcements in programming, rather than merely in the breaks between the end of one program and the beginning of the next.  The FCC rules for both radio and TV state, in italics, that the scheduling of underwriting announcements "may not interrupt regular programming."  What does that mean?

In 1982, in adopting the rules as to the timing of sponsorship announcements and the acknowledgment of donations, the FCC relied on what was then a recently-enacted statute addressing the sponsorship of public broadcasting programming.  The House of Representatives report adopting that legislation contained language interpreting the meaning of the prohibition against these announcements interrupting regular programming.  The FCC relied on that language in adopting the rules currently on the book.  There, Congress said that announcements could be run "at the beginning and end of programs,…between identifiable segments of a longer program" or, in the absence of identifiable segments, during "station breaks" where the flow of programming was "not unduly disrupted."  For radio, this seems like a much easier test to meet, as there are always breaks in programs, e.g. between stories on a news program like Morning Edition, between guests on a program like Fresh Air, or between music sets on a noncommercial music-oriented station.  For TV, the issue is somewhat more complicated, thus the questions that the Times wrote about in connection with the PBS tests.

Continue Reading When Can Underwriting Announcements Be Run on Noncommercial Radio and TV Stations?

The FCC has continued this week on its recent tear of fining broadcast stations and other regulated entities for violations of FCC rules – in the last week proposing fines or reaching consent decrees relating to issues including incomplete public files, EAS violations, unauthorized transfers of FM translators, and tower lighting issues, among others.  But a fine issued to a station a few weeks ago merits further review as it provides some more clarity as to what the FCC requires from a broadcast station’s "main studio."  In this recent case, the FCC proposed a $21,000 fine to this broadcaster who allegedly did not have an adequate main studio or public file, and for operating its AM station after sunset with its daytime facilities.

What do the FCC main studio rules require?  Currently, all full-power broadcasters (including Class A TV stations, with the limited exception of satellite television stations and some noncommercial radio satellite stations who may operate with main studio waivers) must maintain a studio either within its city of license, or at another site either within 25 miles of its city of license or within the city-grade contour of any station licensed to the same city of license as the station.  As set out in Section 73.1125 of the FCC rules, no matter where the studio is located, local residents must be able to reach the station by a toll-free telephone call.  The rule, however, does not specifically state what must be at the main studio – those rules are either found elsewhere in the FCC rules or have been developed by caselaw.

Continue Reading What Do The FCC Main Studio Rules Require? – Recent $21,000 Fine Offers Some Clarification

Is the release of the long-awaited Future of Media Report at hand?  Since January 2010, the FCC has been studying the Future of Media, a study conducted by a Special Advisor to the FCC Chairman who was appointed in November 2009.  The study was to provide important research and analysis of how broadcasting and other media are serving the needs of local communities, particularly in light of changes in the media landscape brought about by new technologies.  FCC Commissioners have suggested that these findings will influence the Commission’s decisionmaking in the open proceedings on localism and on the possible revision of the multiple ownership rules – localism pending for over three and a half years, and the ownership proceeding beginning last year with a Notice of Inquiry.  The Future of Media Report was supposed to have been released by the end of last year, but that date was missed, with several promises that it would be released soon.  According to the Broadcasting and Cable website, it looks like the Report will be detailed at the FCC’s open meeting on Thursday – though even after reading the FCC’s Public Notice of the topics to be discussed at that meeting released last week, many observers (including this one) totally missed that announcement.

Why was the announcement of such an important proceeding missed?  Perhaps because the reference to it is buried in the Public Notice.  Most items to be discussed at an FCC meeting are listed in bold type, with the FCC Bureau or Office that will be presenting the item clearly stated.  In the notice about this week’s meeting, there are two items listed – one dealing with Wireline tariffs, and the other from the International Bureau dealing with satellite frequency use.  But, hidden in some introductory language was the statement:

The meeting will include a presentation by the working group on the impact of technology on the information needs of communities.

There is no reference to the "Future of Media" study.  This presentation was not listed as a separate item.  There is just that one sentence to alert us that there will be a presentation.  Does this mean, as the press reports suggest, that we will at last see the report?  Or will we just get a presentation about the report (which has happened in the past), or a presentation with a promise that we’ll see the report at some point in the future?  We’ll see on Thursday – so stay tuned for what may be a most interesting and important discussion.

Dates for comments and replies on the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the CALM Act, regulating the volume levels of commercials, have now been set.  We provided a detailed summary of that NPRM here.  As set out in that summary, the NPRM asks many questions of broadcasters, cable companies, and other Multichannel Video Programming Distributors about implementation of the CALM Act, including who must comply, how compliance can be achieved, and the impact of reliance on program suppliers (networks, broadcast programming carried on cable, etc.) on compliance.  Comments are due on July 5, with replies due on July 18.  The FCC Public Notice setting out those dates also provides links to additional specifics about filing comments in the proceeding.  To avoid ruining your holiday weekend, get started on comments early!

In another example of how seriously the FCC is considering the reallocation of portions of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband use, the Commission today issued a Public Notice freezing any new petitions for changes in the channels of television stations.  Since the DTV transition, almost 100 stations have changed channels – mostly moving from VHF to UHF channels, as television operators have in determined that VHF channels are subject to more interference and viewer complaints about over-the-air reception.  Many predict that these problems with the remaining VHF stations will be worse when the new mobile DTV devices roll out later this year.  Yet, as the FCC is looking at implementing its plan to recapture portions of the television spectrum for use by wireless broadband, this freeze has now been adopted.  No new Petitions for channel changes will be accepted, though requests already on file will be processed.

The FCC itself has acknowledged the difficulties with the reception of digital DTV signals broadcast on VHF channels, and has asked for public comment on how these difficulties can be overcome, though many engineers seem to feel that, short of repealing the laws of physics, the quest may be an impossible one.  In that same proceeding, the FCC has asked about how it should repack the television spectrum, so that the Commission could provide a contiguous swath of spectrum for broadband users.  These actions are being taken by the FCC even though, so far, there is no legislation authorizing the incentive auctions that would be used to pay some broadcasters to abandon their spectrum.  Without such legislation, the FCC cannot move forward with its plans – thus this freeze may be in place for some time.

Continue Reading FCC Freezes Channel Changes By Digital TV Stations While Evaluating Reallocation of Television Spectrum for Broadband Use

In December, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (“CALM”) Act was adopted by Congress and signed by the President, addressing consumer complaints about television commercials that seem louder than the program content that they accompanied. As we wrote in our summary of the Act when it was adopted, Congress has long received many complaints about loud commercials and decided to act, even though many industry groups were concerned about the ability to design an effective system to deal with the contrasts that sometimes exist between the quiet dialogue that might precede a commercial break and the commercial advertisement itself. Nevertheless, Congress adopted the CALM Act, and instructed the FCC to adopt implementing rules within a year. This past week, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, looking to adopt rules to implement the statute for over-the-air television broadcast stations, cable systems, satellite, and other multichannel video programming providers. In its NPRM, the FCC asks many questions trying to clarify the details of CALM Act implementation.

The NPRM raises a broad array of implementation issues, ranging from deciding exactly which broadcast stations and which MVPDs are subject to its terms, to the establishment of safe harbors for technical compliance. As discussed in more detail below, the Commission also asks whether stations and systems can shift the burden for compliance with these rules to program suppliers, such as broadcast and cable networks, and whether contractual means of guaranteeing compliance (such as indemnification provisions in contracts between networks and affiliates) are sufficient to ensure compliance by these program providers. Questions about how MVPDs deal with retransmission of broadcast programs, and who is responsible for noncompliant broadcast programming, are also asked. Finally, the FCC suggests processes for consumer complaints and the grant of waivers to stations and systems that cannot quickly comply with the new rules.

Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comments on Implementation of CALM Act Regulating Loud Commercials on Broadcast and Cable Television

In March, we cautioned broadcasters against the airing of ads for medical marijuana.  Our concerns stemmed not only from a complaint pending at the FCC, but also because, despite the widespread belief that the Federal government no longer cared about medical marijuana use and sale, the Department of Justice had only said that prosecution was no longer a priority, not that it was no longer illegal.  In recent months, our concerns seem more and more justified.  We had worried about some local Federal prosecutor deciding that he or she had time to prosecute offenses, even though DOJ headquarters did not think it to be a priority.  But, based on press reports and DOJ’s own press releases, it looks like there has been at least some rethinking of the policies in Washington, DC as well.  The DOJ appears to be backtracking on medical marijuana, now saying only that it won’t prosecute individuals who use medical marijuana, but that dispensaries, even if set up under the color of state laws, are still illegal under Federal law and subject to Federal prosecution.  Thus, broadcasters, as Federal licensees, need to exercise extreme care in advertising such dispensaries.

In the last few days, NPR has broadcast stories about the Department of Justice writing letters to authorities in Rhode Island and Arizona, in both cases saying that the Federal government still considers the sale of marijuana, even medical marijuana, to be a Federal felony subject to prosecution.  Both states are now reconsidering their laws that would otherwise allow for the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries.  The DOJ, on its website, cites a US Attorney in Washington State who has written to the landlords of medical marijuana dispensaries, warning them of the penalties that they may face if they allow these dispensaries to continue to operate, going so far as to warn them that they may face the forfeiture of their property to the government as it is being used to distribute prohibited drugs.  As this letter states, “We intend to use the full extent of our legal remedies to enforce the law.”  This language should serve as a warning to broadcasters of the Federal government’s attitude toward marijuana dispensaries.

Continue Reading More Concerns About The Broadcast of Medical Marijuana Ads

In several recent cases, the FCC issued big fines to stations that had significant gaps in their public inspection files – fines of between $10,000 and $14,000.  Unlike many other recent public inspection file fines, these fines did not arise from self-reporting of violations in a license renewal application, nor were they discovered as a result of a complaint from a disgruntled listener or competitor.  These fines also did not arise in connection with the discovery of other violations at the stations.  Instead, these fines were the result of FCC inspections – inspections that seemingly did not turn up other significant violations.  Thus, these cases serve as a warning that broadcasters need to ensure that their file is complete and up-to-date at all times.  Curiously, these large fines come at the same time that the FCC is about to consider comments on whether the public file paperwork burden is justifiable.

These fines were large – demonstrating a seeming trend to ever-higher fines for public file violations.  The $14,000 fine issued today went to a Class A TV station that had no quarterly programs issues lists in its public file for the entire license renewal term – 34 reports were missing at the time of the inspection.  Based on this egregious violation, the FCC decided that an increase over the base $10,000 fine was in order.  Two AM stations, which had pretty much the same violation as the Class A station – no QPIs for the same period of time – received $10,000 fines (see decisions here and here).  A third AM station received a $10,000 fine for having no new information in its public file since 2006.

Continue Reading FCC Fines Of $10,000 to $14,000 for Broadcast Public File Violations – Discovered By FCC Inspections

Legal issues regarding privacy have long been an issue for broadcasters and other media companies.  Traditionally, privacy concerns for media companies have arisen in the context of news gathering, advertising or other on-air content that either was gathered in a way that intruded on someone’s privacy, or which used private facts or personal images, without consent, for commercial purposes.   As technology developed, privacy related issues followed. There are legal restrictions setting out rules about using automated calling (or texting) for commercial purposes to people who have not consented, sending faxes to persons who have not given you permission to use their fax numbers, and sending unsolicited emails.  Online, the issues increase, with rules or policies in existence or in development.  There long have been rules about collecting personal information about children under the age of 13 (under COPPA – the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, see information about a recent enforcement action here).  Other laws govern the need to keep secure any private information that you collect about others – like credit card information that you may collect from advertising clients or listeners who buy merchandise or other goods from the station (everything from tee shirts to Groupon-like coupons).  And recently, there have been a number of lawsuits and government actions targeting the collection and unauthorized use of personally identifiable information about website visitors (or those using a station App) without knowledge or consent.  All of these issues were discussed during a webinar that Ronnie London and I conducted for the Texas Association of Broadcasters.  The slides from that session, providing a good outline of many of the basic legal issues that arise in connection with privacy issues, are available here.

We’ve written about these new media privacy issues before, and our firm’s Privacy and Security Blog cover these issues regularly.   This is an important area that broadcasters need to pay attention to, especially as they increase commercial activity from their websites, on mobile applications, and in other forms of digital media.  Plaintiff”s attorneys are looking for companies who do not adhere to their privacy policies or who provide personally identifiable information (known as "PII" in the privacy world) to third parties without permission.  Congress, the FTC, the FCC, and the Commerce Department have all been looking at new regulatory regimes to govern privacy in many areas – including enhanced and targeted advertising, and the use of geo-location information.  Pay attention to these development as, while the web offers many new opportunities to increase revenues, it also may well bring new legal concerns for broadcasters beyond those FCC issues with which broadcasters have so long concerned themselves.