Politico ran a story last week, indicating that a number of radio talk show hosts were paid to endorse, during their shows, certain causes and groups that might be of interest to their listeners.  The article suggests that the endorsements included live read commercials, as well as other comments made during the course of the program, as asides or during discussions of the issues of the day.  While we have not reviewed any of these programs, and have no idea if the story is accurate or how any paid mentions were handled during the program, radio stations do need to be cautious in this area, and consider the sponsorship identification issues that may be raised by such conduct.  And this consideration is not just in connection with political talk programs – but wherever any on-air talent receives consideration for making a plug for a product or service on the station.

This issue has already been a big deal on the video side of the media house, with both broadcasters and cable companies having been fined for including material in their programs without disclosing that they had received consideration for the inclusion of the material.  Recently, we wrote about two TV stations who were fined by the FCC for broadcasting "video news releases", where the stations broadcast content from third parties which was deemed to have a promotional message included for the third party’s product, where the station did not specifically disclose that the video material had been provided at no charge to the station.  The provision of the tape alone was deemed to be consideration.  Almost four years ago, we wrote about another station that was hit with a fine when a syndicated TV talk show host was revealed to have been receiving government money to promote a government program (No Child Left Behind), was promoting that government program during his show, and not mentioning that he had received this consideration.  The station was fined – even though they did not produce the program, as they had not inquired about whether any sort of consideration had been received by the host.  The Communications Act puts the burden on stations to reveal sponsors when consideration has been paid for the airing of any programming, and the FCC has said that this burden requires that the station take efforts to make sure that all programming – even that coming from syndicators – complies with the rules.   

Continue Reading Radio Talkers Paid to Endorse Causes During Their Shows? What Should Stations Do?

Among the many things that broadcasters need to remember when they buy a broadcast station is making sure that the tower registration (the "Antenna Structure Registration" or "ASR") for that station is transferred along with the rest of the station assets.  Unlike most registrations and filings done at the time of the Closing of a sale of a broadcast station, the issue is not one of establishing the rights or title to any tower assets that are transferred with the station.  Instead, the registration is to let the FCC know who is responsible for that tower in the event the FCC needs to get in touch with the owner to deal with tower lighting or fencing issues or similar matters.  Many broadcasters may think that this transfer of the tower registration is automatically done when a station is sold, in connection with the FCC approval of the assignment of license or transfer of control.  It is not – a separate filing on FCC Form 854 is necessary.  In a decision just released by the FCC, a fine of $3000 was levied against a broadcaster whose tower was registered in the old owner’s name, 3 years after the tower and the stations that broadcast from that tower were sold to the current owner.

The base fine for an inaccurate tower registration is $3000.  In this case, the FCC reduced a $6000 fine issued because two towers were not registered.  As the two towers were part of a single AM station array, were physically adjacent to each other, and as the current owner was found easily when the station was called, the FCC reduced the fine to $3000.  However, it noted that it could impose a higher fine if there was a more dangerous situation, or if a case arises where it is more difficult to find the real tower owner.  We’ve written about similar fines before.  The FCC views tower registration as very important.  So make sure that the owner of your tower is accurately registered with the FCC – and don’t forget to update the sign at the tower site identifying the ASR, and make sure that the sign is kept in good repair and is visible from a publicly accessible location so that FCC inspectors or others can identify the tower they are looking at, as incorrect signage can increase the amount of any fine for tower site issues.  Note that Section 17.4 of the Commission’s rules, which sets out the tower registration requirements, also requires that tower owners provide all tenants with the tower registration number.  Observe these details, or risk an FCC fine. 

In recent years, FM translators have become more and more important to broadcasters, as they are being used to rebroadcast AM stations and HD-2 channels, giving the programming broadcast on these over-the-air signals new outlets in many markets.  However, there have been some bumps in the road to the introduction of these new outlets.  These bumps have arisen both from attempts to move these translators significant distances without observing all the obligations of FCC rules and policies, and in connection with translator stations that have started operations only to find that there were interference complaints from a broadcaster on an adjacent channel in some nearby market. So, while translator stations have provided many opportunities to broadcasters, those looking at translators to rebroadcast one of their signals should be aware of these potential pitfalls that have arisen in a few cases.

Perhaps the worst case involved an translator licensee in Florida, who was attempting to move translators from the Florida Keys into the Miami area.  Under current rules, an FM translator licensee can only move a translator from one location to another if the current coverage of the translator overlaps with the proposed coverage area of that station, unless the applicant waits for an infrequent translator window (the last was held in 2003) where the application can file a "major change" and would be subject to competing applications, .  Because of this requirement, it sometimes it takes multiple "hops" to move a translator from one location to another where someone might want to use it to rebroadcast an AM station or an HD-2 signal.  At each hop, the translator licensee must build the station, get it licensed, and then file to move to the next location until it is ultimately located at its desired location.  Each hop can take months to process by the FCC, to build and operate.  The recent case shows the problems that can arise in connection with these hops if an applicant attempts to cut corners.

Continue Reading The Bumpy Road of Using FM Translators to Rebroadcast AM Stations or HD-2 Channels

The date for a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System ("EAS") was announced by the FCC last week, at the same meeting at which the Future of Media report was delivered.  The first ever national test of EAS will occur at 2 PM EST on November 9, 2011. As we wrote in February, the FCC amended its rules to provide for a nationwide test, in addition to the weekly and monthly tests that are already part of the FCC rules.  The nationwide test is to assess the reliability and effectiveness of EAS in being able to convey to the public a Presidential alert.  This test comes at the same time as the FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider amendments to its rules to provide for the conversion to a new method of disseminating EAS alerts – using the Common Alert Protocol (CAP) which is IP based, rather than reliant on the daisy chain over-the-air system that has been used for so long.  One question is whether the deadline for CAP implementation, presently set for September 30, should be extended.  Thoughts about the test and the FCC proposals for CAP implementation are set out below. 

The Nationwide test, even though it will not use the CAP system (which in and of itself may show that the Commission has already recognized that the September 30 CAP implementation deadline will be extended), is still very important for broadcasters.  The FCC, in coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), will use the results of the test to determine what problems exist in the EAS system and what improvements are necessary to ensure that the EAS functions as a robust public warning system.  As broadcasters in recent years have highlighted their participation in EAS, and the important role that it plays in alerting communities to emergency situations, in connection with many initiatives (including the push to put FM chips in cell phones), broadcasters want to make sure that their performance during the upcoming test will be up to the level that the FCC expects. As all EAS participants will have to report to the FCC on the results of the test, all participants should use the period between now and November to assure that their systems are working and ready to fulfill their obligations under the rules. No broadcaster, cable system or other participant wants to be in the position of having to report to the FCC that their equipment was malfunctioning on the date of the test. And, certainly, no participant wants to forget to file the necessary report when due.

Continue Reading Updates on EAS – A Nationwide Test, and Lots of Questions About CAP Implementation Including Whether More Time is Needed

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