Last week, we wrote about the new requirement for a nondiscrimination clause in all broadcast advertising contracts.  In the new license renewal applications, broadcasters must certify that they do not discriminate in the sale of advertising time and that their contracts contain the required certification.  Today, the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC issued an Enforcement Advisory, answering questions about the new requirement.  Unfortunately, that advisory really does little but reiterate what the FCC has already said – that the Commission is concerned about "No Urban, no Spanish dictates", and that broadcasters must make sure that there is no discrimination in the purchase of advertising time on their stations.  But, the Commission does make clear in an accompanying News Release, through a statement from Chairman Genachowski, that the Commission "will vigorously enforce its rules against discrimination in advertising sales contracts."  The advisory does highlight one new matter – that stations that use advertising rep firms or other sales agents must make sure that these agents have nondiscrimination clauses in their own contracts used to sell advertising time on the station. 

This policy has raised several questions from broadcasters.  Many have asked what they should do if they have no advertising contracts.  Apparently, many broadcasters, especially in smaller markets or when dealing with regular customers, book advertising through emails or phone calls – not formal contracts.  The FCC does not address how this should be handled.  We’ve suggested that broadcasters include the nondiscrimination clause in the exchanges that essentially form the contract – e.g. the email confirming the schedule, the rate cards offering the spots for sale, or other communications between the station and the advertiser.  We also suggest that stations adopt written contracts, as these contracts can cover issues that are important to broadcasters, e.g. indemnifications from advertisers that they have the rights to all the music and other material used in their ads, statements that the broadcaster reserves the right to preempt ads if they don’t like the content or if the broadcaster needs to run something more important, that advertising sold to one party should not be re-sold to anyone else, that the broadcaster is not liable for any consequential damages if an ad does not run for technical or other reasons, and similar issues.

Continue Reading FCC Issues Advisory on Nondiscrimination Clause Required to Be Included in All Broadcast Advertising Contracts – What Should the Clause Say? – Why An Advertising Contract is Important

UPDATE:  On March 23rd, the FCC granted a ten-day extension of the filing deadline.  Comments are now due April 28th, and Reply Comments are due by May 27th.

The FCC’s recent item proposing the adoption of video description rules was published in the Federal Register today setting the deadline for Comments in the proceeding. The FCC subsequently extended the deadline, and Comments are now due by April 28th, with Reply Comments due by May 27th.  As we wrote about recently (here), the FCC has initiated a rule making proceeding to reinstate its prior video description rules with certain modifications, as required by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (Act). The proposed rules would require large market broadcast affiliates of the top four national networks and most cable operators and DBS providers to provide programming with audio narrated descriptions of a television program’s key visual elements beginning as soon as first quarter 2012.  Davis Wright Tremaine previously summarized the Act in our earlier advisory available here.

Now, with today’s publication of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal Register, the date for comments has been set, and the FCC is moving quickly to implement the rules.  In addition to proposing to reinstate the rules previously adopted by the FCC, the item asks many practical implementation questions about refreshing market rankings, applicability of the rules to low power television, and what constitutes the “technical capability” to pass through video descriptions. In particular, the FCC seeks to refresh the list of the top 25 DMAs, as well as update the top five national nonbroadcast networks subject to the rule.  Interested parties may file comments with the FCC either in paper or electronically through the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System on or before April 28, 2011.  

As medical marijuana has become legalized or decriminalized in many states, broadcasters have looked at advertising for the services of clinics and dispensaries as a potential new revenue source. As some community newspapers and other local media have begun to advertise dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legal, we’ve been asked many times whether broadcasters can start to run such ads as well. Many radio and TV stations have even been approached by the operators of these clinics, seeking to run advertising schedules. Should broadcasters accept such ads? We urge caution.

Even though many states have decriminalized medical marijuana, possession and distribution of marijuana is still a Federal crime.  And broadcasters, unlike most other local media outlets, operate with Federal licenses. While the current US Attorney General has said that he will not criminally prosecute medical marijuana cases, the prohibition against marijuana remains on the books.  A careful reading of the Attorney General’s directive on medical marijuana shows that the Department of Justice has not said that medical marijuana is a legal substance, but only that, as a matter of prosecutorial priorities, the DOJ will not use its resources to target dispensaries and clinics operating under the color of state laws.  So, while this Attorney General may not direct his Department to prosecute medical marijuana users or distributors, the possession of marijuana remains a Federal crime, and the Attorney General’s memo makes clear that state laws cannot change this conclusion.  Thus, there may be some zealous local Federal prosecutor who decides to enforce the law on his or her own. Or, perhaps of more concern to the broadcaster, is the fact that there may be some local citizen in an area served by a radio or television station that runs such an ad who complains about the content of the ad to the FCC. In fact, we understand that there are already such complaints pending at the FCC. 

Continue Reading Advertising Medical Marijuana on Broadcast Stations – Is It Legal, What Will the FCC Think?

Under FCC policies, stations licensed as noncommercial educational (NCE) stations cannot conduct fundraising for parties other than the station licensee if such fundraising will disrupt the normal program schedule of the station.  So the Jerry Lewis Telethon and similar charitable programming efforts cannot be conducted by noncommercial stations without a waiver from the FCC.  In recent years, when there have been major disasters, like Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake, the FCC has adopted a liberal waiver policy to allow noncommercial stations to join the rest of the world in aiding the victims of such tragedies.  This week, the FCC adopted a similar policy for noncommercial stations wanting to conduct fundraisers for Japanese relief efforts, issuing a Public Notice setting out that policy.  Waiver requests can be filed by an email to the head of the Audio or Video Division of the FCC (depending on whether the request is coming from a radio or TV station), setting out the following information:

a. the nature of the fundraising effort;

b. the proposed duration of the fundraising effort;

c. the organization(s) to which funds will be donated; and

d. whether the fundraiser will be part of the licensee’s regularly scheduled pledge drive or fundraising effort. 

As we wrote when the Haitian Notice was issued, there does not seem to be a need, under FCC precedent, for stations to have to request permission from the FCC if these fundraising appeals will not interrupt regular station programming.  Yet it might be safest to ask for that permission if the requests will be regularly run during the course of programming on the station – to avoid any question about such activities.  Of course, the question could be raised as to whether the FCC really needs to have this rule any longer – or if it might not be more appropriate for noncommercial stations to use their own discretion to make programming decisions about the fundraising that they want to do in the public interest.  But that is a question for another day – as stations have a good cause to which they can contribute now, and the FCC has given them the ability to do so on an expedited basis. 

Broadcast engineers are often tasked with much of a station’s regulatory compliance, as well as its planning for the future.  At last week’s Michigan Association of Broadcasters Great Lakes Broadcasting Conference, I did a presentation to the a session of broadcast engineers and others, sponsored by the local chapter of the Society of Broadcast Engineers. We covered the industry’s macro issues of spectrum reallocation for television, and HD Radio for radio, and the possible use of TV Channels 5 and 6 for radio.  We also talked about restrictions on the movement of AM and FM stations based on the FCC’s rural radio proceeding, and the issues between translators and LPFM stations.  Then we talked about many of the day to day issues that can get a station in trouble – particularly with license renewals coming up.  A copy of the slides that I used in the presentation is available here.  Additional information on many of the topics that I discussed last week are also available on our blog, as listed below.

Some of the articles that we have written that would be important to members of the engineering community include the following:

  • The latest on White Spaces, and the development of the database that will be used to protect TV stations, translators, cable headends and other current users of the TV spectrum, an issue that I neglected to address at the conference 
  • A summary of the FCC’s proceeding to determine how incentive auctions would work to clear space in the TV spectrum for wireless broadband, and on making VHF channels more useful for digital television
  • The latest on video description of TV programming can be found here.
  • Information about closed captioning requirements and the new complaint process for issues about such captioning can be found here
  • Our checklist for the commercial broadcaster’s public file can be found here
  • Information on the FCC’s rural radio proceeding can be found here

There are plenty of other articles on the Blog about FCC Fines, LPFM/FM translator issues, Tower issues, EAS and other matters that are important to engineers – and to the stations they work for.

Continue Reading FCC Legal Issues for Broadcast Engineers – A Presentation to the Michigan Broadcasters

The FCC today released a Public Notice announcing new provisions in its license renewal Form 303S – the form that radio and television stations will be using to file license renewal applications, starting with license renewals for radio stations in DC, Virginia and West Virginia in June.  The Notice addressed several changes in the license renewal form – including the addition of certifications concerning whether a station was off the air at any point during the license term for a period of more than 30 days, whether principals of the licensee have interests in daily newspapers in the same area, and whether the station is in compliance with the RF radiation rules.  Two other issues of note were raised in the Public Notice – one dealing with stations that have not received a license renewal from the last license cycle, and one dealing with the newly required certification that stations must make – that their advertising contracts contain a nondiscrimination provision to assure that advertisers are not purchasing advertising on the station for a discriminatory purpose. 

We’ve written about the advertising anti-discrimination certification before, suggesting language that stations include in their contracts.  What is new in today’s notice is that the FCC has clarified that the certification only covers the period from today’s notice until the filing of the license renewal application.  So stations that do not have such certifications can still get them into their contracts now to avoid certification issues later.  In our previous articles on this subject, we’ve noted that this is a confusing requirement, and that even its supporters have urged the FCC to clarify it. Today’s Notice only says that stations must avoid advertising purchases made on the basis of "no urban, no Spanish" dictates, but does not go any further in interpreting the requirements of this policy. 

Continue Reading FCC Clarifies Requirement for Antidiscrimination Clause in Advertising Contracts – And Sets Out Other License Renewal Changes

Last week, the Copyright Office published in the Federal Register the final decision of the Copyright Royalty Board on the statutory rates for Internet radio royalties – royalties paid by webcasters for the noninteractive streaming of sound recordings.  As we have made clear before, these are royalties that are paid in addition to the royalties paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for the public performance of the musical compositions (see our memo on Using Music in Digital Media, here, that explains the difference between the sound recording and musical composition royalties).  The rates adopted by the CRB are the rates to be paid by any webcaster who has not elected alternative rates available under one of the many settlement agreements between SoundExchange and groups of webcasters, which were entered into under the Webcaster Settlement Acts.  The Final Decision corrects a few typos in the initial decision, but otherwise leaves the substantive holdings of the decision unchanged.  We described those holdings here.  While the publication of the final decision starts the clock running on filing an appeal, the new rates are unchanged from those that were in effect for 2010 for commercial webcasters who had not elected any available alternative set of rates.  Thus, these webcasters will continue to pay at the rate of $.0019 per “performance” (a performance being one listener listening to one song – e.g. if there are 100 people listening to a stream that plays 10 songs in an hour – there are 1000 performances in that hour) for the remainder of 2011.   The publication of these rates has, however, triggered a number of questions about the comparative royalties that different Internet radio services pay for streaming music on the Internet – rates summarized below.

As set out below in detail, there are significant differences in the royalties paid by different services for the 2011-2015 royalty period.  Broadcasters who are streaming their programming on the Internet pay lower per performance royalties than webcasters paying the statutory rate in the first years of the 5 year period, but higher rates at the end of the period. (See a summary of the Broadcaster royalty agreement here).  “Pureplay” webcasters, like Pandora, pay significantly lower per performance royalties than either broadcasters or those paying under the statutory rate, but are required to pay a minimum fee of 25% of the gross revenue of their entire business – ruling out these lower rates as an option for any service that has lines of business other than webcasting.  (See a summary of the Pureplay deal here).  The broadcaster deal and that which applies to the Pureplay webcasters were both arrived at pursuant to settlements reached under the two Webcaster Settlement Acts, passed in 2008 and 2009.  These allowed the groups covered by these agreements to negotiate with SoundExchange over the rates that would cover the industry for the digital noninteractive performances of sound recordings.  The statutory rates were arrived at by a decision of the Copyright Royalty Judges after litigation which took place last year.

Continue Reading Final Webcasting Royalty Rates Published – A Comparison of How Much Various Services Pay

The FCC recently revised its TV “white spaces” rules to facilitate the use of unlicensed communications devices on spectrum originally allocated exclusively for broadcast television.  Although there is still a long way to go before new unlicensed devices are deployed in this spectrum, the recent revision of the rules has triggered an important deadline.  As detailed in our client advisory issued today and available here, cable headends, TV translators, low power television stations, and other Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) receive sites that are located outside a broadcast station’s standard protection zone have until April 5, 2011, to file a waiver request seeking interference protection.

Practically speaking, the vast majority of cable headends, TV translators, and MVPD receive sites that rely on the reception of an over-the-air broadcast signal are located well within the broadcast station’s standard protection zone. Thus, the April 5th deadline applies only to those unique cases in which an existing over-the-air receive site is located more than 80 kilometers (49.7 kilometers) beyond the edge of the broadcast station’s protected contour.

As the filing deadline is less than a month away, we encourage potentially affected parties to promptly review their operations. Television broadcasters, who may not themselves operate a facility eligible for a waiver, should consider if there are cable headends, TV translators, or other MVPD receive sites far beyond their contour that might benefit from a waiver request.  In such cases, the broadcaster should coordinate with the operators of those facilities to ensure a timely submission. 

See today’s advisory for further details on this upcoming deadline, as well as our earlier postings here and here for more information about the white spaces rules and the forthcoming white spaces database. 

Last week, amid the flurry of other actions taken on retransmission consent, rural radio and video accessibility, the Commission released its proposal for revisions to its regulatory filing fees, as it is required to do every two years.  The proposed fees for broadcast applications are set out below.  No other changes in any of the fees or fee categories are proposed.  According to the FCC proposal, the fees will rise by the amount of the cost of living increase since the last time the fees were adjusted – thus the cost to file FCC applications will rise by 3.5%.

Comments on the proposed fees are due 15 days after the Notice is published in the Federal Register, with replies due 30 days after that publication.  The table below sets out the fees for broadcast applications for main stations.   Proposed fees for applications for broadcast auxiliaries and other non-broadcast services are set out in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

Continue Reading FCC Proposes Revised Application Filing Fees

The FCC’s decision in its rural radio proceeding addresses numerous radio issues – some of which seem to provide a solution in search of a problem.  In an era where the President has called for agencies to review their decisions to access how they will affect businesses and job creation, some aspects of this rural radio decision appear to be moving in the opposite direction – imposing new hurdles on broadcasters trying to improve their operational facilities. While the FCC in this decision adopted largely uncontested rules that would promote the development of new radio stations on Tribal lands, the Commission also adopted rules making it harder for radio stations to move from more rural areas into more urban ones – rule that were almost universally condemned by broadcasters. The decision also restricted the ability of FM translators to “hop” from the commercial to the noncommercial band and vice versa, and adopted rules that codified the determination of how AM applications are determined to be “mutually exclusive” when filed in the same window for new or major change applications.  The changes to the procedures for consideration of AM and FM station allotment and movement are summarized below.  The other changes made in this proceeding will be discussed in a subsequent post on this blog.

Easily the most controversial of the decisions made by the Commission in this proceeding was the conclusions reached as to the movement of AM and FM radio stations from more rural areas into more urbanized ones.  We wrote about some of the concerns raised by broadcasters last week.  Many of the new rules and policies adopted by the Commission were ones feared by broadcasters – though many of the policies are still undefined, and how they are enforced may well determine their ultimate impact.  That impact may well take years to sort out.  Regardless of the ultimate impact on the actual movement of stations, there is no question that these rules will require far more paperwork from broadcasters seeking to allot new channels and from those seeking to change the cities of license of existing stations, and open more moves to challenge, making the process slower and more expensive.

Continue Reading FCC Adopts Rules Restricting Rural to Urban Radio Moves and Translator Band Hopping – And Adopts Tribal Area Preferences