When the FCC looks to adopt new rules or policies through rulemaking proceedings or through other significant cases, there are often companies, associations and individuals trying to influence the decision on these matters.  Such discussions with FCC decision makers are permitted, but the parties trying to influence the FCC’s decisions must file notices in the Docket of the proceeding on which they were commenting, summarizing the discussions that were had, and the issues that were discussed.  These notices are called "ex parte notices" and the rules dealing with the disclosure of the lobbying being done on these FCC issues are called the "ex parte" rules.  The FCC has just issued a Report and Order that revises and updates those rules to require more detailed and frequent disclosures.  Our Davis Wright Tremaine advisory on these updates  is now available.

The changes include clarifications that require written disclosures even if the parties involved don’t believe that any new information was conveyed or new arguments raised, mandatory electronic filing of most notices, an extra day to file most ex parte notices (two business days instead of one), but expedited filing in cases where presentations are made in or close to the "sunshine period" (the period just before the decision, when comments to decision makers are generally limited to those requested by the FCC staff).  The FCC also decided, for now, not to include ex parte filing obligations in connection with comments made on the FCC’s social media sites (e.g. its blogs, twitter feed and Facebook pages).  Finally, the Commission asked for more comments on whether there should be corporate disclosures made in connection with ex parte notices – whether companies should be required to identify their communications interests and whether trade and public interest groups should be required to identify who supports these groups positions.  Comments on how such a requirement could be implemented, and whether the burden that it imposes would be worth the benefit it provides, are due 45 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register.  Again, for more information, look at the Order, or at our firm’s Advisory.   Be sure to comply with these rules, as one of the order charged the Office of General Counsel and the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau with policing violations of the rules, and authorizing fines for repeated or egregious violations. 

The FCC today upheld a $4000 fine issued to a broadcaster for broadcasting a telephone conversation without first getting the permission of the people on the other end of the line, denying reconsideration that the broadcaster had sought – arguing that the fine violated its First Amendment rights.  The telephone conversation that led to the fine was between a station employee and two airport officials, about a controversy concerning the local airport.  As summarized in our original article about that decision, the alleged violation arose from a call by the station employee to the airport officials to talk about the local controversy.  The employee allegedly identified himself as a station employee, and started to ask questions – without specifically stating that the call was being broadcast.  Even though the airport officials kept talking once they knew that the call was being recorded, the FCC still fined the station $4000, finding that the violation occurred once the officials said "hello" on the phone without having been told beforehand that the call was being broadcast.  The decision denying reconsideration is most notable for its long discussion of the First Amendment, which the station argued should override the FCC’s rules against broadcasting a telephone conversation without prior permission.

The broadcaster argued that, as in any case restricting speech rights, the FCC needed to show a compelling interest to restrict a broadcaster’s free speech rights.  Here, the broadcaster argued, no such compelling interest justifying the FCC’s blanket rule against broadcasting a conversation without getting prior approval had been shown.  The broadcaster made the point that this was not some case of a wake up call to a visiting celebrity, or a spoof call to a prominent person where the caller was not identified, but was instead a case of a reporter calling a news source for comment on a news controversy.  The subjects knew that they were talking to the station, and thus should have assumed that the substance of their statements might end up being broadcast.  The mere fact that their actual statements were being broadcast live should not, contended the broadcaster, be a sanctionable offense. 

Continue Reading Rule Against Broadcast of Telephone Conversation Without Prior Permission is Constitutional, Says FCC

The FCC is now accepting Form 175 applications for FM Auction 91 – an auction of 144 new FM channels across the country.  Applications are due between now and February 10.  We wrote about the auction here, and the list of channels to be auctioned is available here.   So, if you are interested in a new FM channel, act now!

While this auction is proceeding, in a recent case, the FCC addressed what to do with new FM channels that are not yet set for auction.  The FCC regularly receives petitions for rulemaking, seeking the addition of new FM channels.  Once allotted, these channels may sit on hold for a year or more before being listed for an auction like that now starting.  There are many such channels awaiting auction now, and not included in Auction 91.  During that period between auctions, owners of existing stations may find that these vacant allocations block upgrades or other changes that the owners may want to make to their existing stations.   Until recently, the existing licensee could suggest changes to the new allotments while they were sitting there waiting to be put out for auction – changes including restricting the transmitter site location for that new channel, changing the city of license for the allotment, downgrading it, or even deleting the channel altogether.  As set forth in the recent case, the policy has been to entertain these proposals, unless there was a showing that there was a party ready to file for the vacant allotment.  In the recent case, the FCC decided that no future proposals to change vacant allotments would be entertained, as the Commission believes that all channels have someone who is interested in the channel, or there will be an interested person when the next auction begins.  This policy will govern all future proceedings, with the limited exception that the FCC will entertain a change in frequency for a new allotment, as long as no other changes are made in that allotment (i.e. it stays at the same location and will continue to be able to operate with the same power).

Continue Reading As Applications for New FM Auction Are About to be Filed – FCC Clarifies Rules on Changes to New Allotments

The Commission today released an Order conditionally designating 9 companies to be database administrators for white spaces devices.  As we wrote in our article describing the FCC’s recent decision on reconsideration of its White Spaces order, these administrators will be responsible for maintaining a database of all users of the TV spectrum who must be protected from interference from white spaces devices.  Protected entities include TV stations, LPTV stations and TV translators, cable and satellite receive locations, certain wireless microphone users, and the paths between TV stations and translators.  Each database must maintain all of this information, so that white spaces devices can determine what channels must be protected in areas in which they are operating. 

The conditional nature of the designation reflects the fact that these administrators had requested designation in late 2009, before the recent Order on Reconsideration which adopted the new requirements that all white spaces devices must communicate with these administrators instead of relying on any sort of spectrum sensing.  Thus, the FCC is requiring the proposed administrators to update their filings to reflect that they can meet the new requirements for the maintaining the database.  One of these new requirements is one of security – so that it can be ensured that the users will have an accurate data base from which to operate, without fear of tampering or other abuses.  The FCC will also require that each administrator attend an education session conducted by the FCC, and to go through a rigorous testing period – with tests conducted by the FCC to make sure that the administrator’s service will actually provide the necessary information to protect incumbent TV spectrum users from interference from white spaces devices.

Continue Reading FCC Designates Database Adminstrators for TV White Spaces Devices

Each year, we remind webcasters about their obligations under various settlement agreements entered into with SoundExchange and under CRB decisions to make minimum payments and, in some cases, to file a Notice of Election to be covered under certain negotiated rates – all due by January 31.  All webcasters have minimum fee obligations due by January 31.  Many, though not all, Webcasters who have elected the the royalty rates set by many of the settlement agreements entered into pursuant to the Webcasters Settlement Act must also file an election notice with SoundExchange by January 31 to continue to be covered by those settlement agreements.   These agreements were entered into by groups of webcasters and SoundExchange, and allow the webcasters to pay royalties at rates lower than those rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board for 2011. 

While SoundExchange has, in the past, sent out reminders of these obligations to services that had paid in the prior year, sometimes these notices get lost, so Internet Radio operators need to remember to make these filings.  The original election forms filed under settlement agreements signed by the NAB and by Sirius XM cover the entire settlement period from 2006-2015, so no election form must be filed each year, though minimum fee payments must still be made.  Note that certain small broadcasters, who under the Broadcaster agreement need not comply with SoundExchange recordkeeping obligations, do need to file an election to certify that they still meet the standards necessary to count as a small broadcaster.  The WSA settlement agreements that cover Pureplay webcasters, Small Commercial webcasters, and certain Noncommercial Educational webcasters are all are entered into on a year-by-year basis (though, as noted below, there is a default in certain noncommercial webcasting agreements that, if you were covered in prior years, you will be continued to be covered in the current year, unless you opt out).  Thus, to continue to be covered, parties currently governed by these agreements need to file a Notice of Election to again be covered by these agreements by January 31.

Continue Reading Reminder: Most Webcasters Need to File With SoundExchange Minimum Fees and Many Need A Notice of Election of Webcaster Settlement Act Rates, All By January 31

A controversy has bubbled up in connection with the FCC proceeding to set the date by which Low Power Television stations will be required to convert to digital operations.  While the analog operations of full-power TV stations were mandatorily terminated in 2009, Low Power television stations and TV translators have not yet faced any end date for their analog operations – though the FCC recently suggested that the final date for analog broadcasting by these stations be set – perhaps as soon as next year.  In comments filed in the proceeding to set the end date, the question of when to terminate analog broadcasting became tangled in another issue – whether Channel 6 LPTV stations should be allowed to continue to be used to broadcast FM programming.  NPR suggested that the practice be terminated now, while Channel 6 licensees argued that this use was perfectly permissible under FCC rules, and that it provides a public interest benefit that should be preserved.

Channel 6 is immediately adjacent to the FM band.  Analog television stations used an audio transmission standard that was very similar to that used by FM stations, and the audio from analog Channel 6 stations could be picked up by FM radio receivers. In many major television markets across the country, LPTV operators have taken their stations, optimized the audio for FM reception, and started broadcasts intended to be treated like radio stations – programming music or talk like a radio station, with the video programming being secondary to the audio output.  Some have called these "Franken FMs", and many listeners don’t even realize that they are listening to a station licensed for video operation – just assuming that radio on 87.7 or 87.9 is a normal extension of the FM band.  But this proceeding to end analog television broadcasting has brought the issue to the forefront.

Continue Reading The Battle Over TV Channel 6 and LPTVs Used for FM Radio Broadcasts

Many broadcasters, both television and radio, have been running the NAB spots on the Future of Television.  Those spots contain a description of the service available from local television stations and the new technologies that over-the-air television are in the process of deploying, and end with the suggestion that the Future of Broadcast Television lies in "technology not regulation from Washington DC."  Obviously, these ads are geared to address some of the many legislative and administrative issues facing TV broadcasters – including the proposals to take back some of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband uses.  Given that these spots could be arguably be seen as addressing Federal issues, to be safe, they should be identified as issue ads in stations’ public inspection files, and appropriate information about those spots should be placed in the files.

The NAB, in announcing the availability of these spots, suggested this same precaution.  We’ve written before about issue ads, and the need to place notations in the public file about these ads. For instance, when stations ran ads on the broadcast performance royalty, we suggested that same treatment (and proponents of the royalty complained that broadcasters might not be making such notations).  What needs to go in the public file?  As the issues are Federal ones (as opposed to state and local issues that have lesser disclosure obligations), the requirements are similar to those that apply to political candidates. 

Continue Reading Is Your Station Running the NAB Future of Television Spots? Are You Identifying Them As Issue Ads in Your Public File?

February 1 is the deadline by which broadcast stations in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma must place into their Public Inspection files their Annual EEO Public Inspection File Report.  The report must also be available on these stations’ websites, if they have such sites.  The Annual EEO Public Inspection File Report provides information about the full-time jobs filled at the station in the previous year; the sources used by the station to recruit potential employees to fill the open positions; and the additional "supplemental efforts" conducted by the station, whether or not they had any employment openings, to educate and inform their communities about broadcast employment.   This obligation extends to all "station employment units" (groups of commonly controlled stations, serving a common geographical area, with at least one common employee) with 5 or more full-time employees (a full-time employee, for FCC purposes, being one working 30 or more hours per week).  Our firm’s Advisory detailing the requirements for this report can be found here, with a model for the report at Appendix A of that advisory.  More information about Broadcasters’ EEO obligations generally can be found in our Primer on the FCC’s EEO Rules, here.

Yesterday, I conducted a webinar for the Kansas Association of Broadcasters to provide a refresher on broadcasters’ EEO obligations under FCC rules, regulations and policies.  The slides used in that presentation can be viewed here.  With the next cycle of license renewal applications beginning later this year, stations need to be especially vigilant about EEO obligations to avoid scrutiny at renewal time, which could delay the processing of renewal applications (and potentially of any sale that might be underway at that time, see our post here) and possibly lead to fines or other penalties.    Radio stations in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi will file renewals on February 1, 2012;  radio stations in Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska will file their renewals on February 1, 2013; and those in New York and New Jersey will file by February 1, 2014.  TV stations will file one year later than radio stations located in their states.  As two years worth of public inspection file reports must be submitted with the license renewal applications, the hiring process used this year will be scrutinized by the FCC during the renewal process for stations in most of these states.  So make sure that you are following the rules, and documenting your EEO efforts for the FCC to avoid renewal-time problems. 

The Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Citizens United v. FEC one year ago today.  That case allowed corporations and labor unions to make independent expenditures for or against political candidates.  An editorial in today’s Washington Post by the President of Citizens United and its lead counsel argues that the hysteria following that decision was unfounded because the amount spent by citizen groups in the last election paled in comparison to the amount spent by the Democratic and Republican parties and by the candidates themselves.  Rather, the authors argue, the primary political speech to come out of the Supreme Court’s decision has been that of independents, and politicians are upset by this because they cannot control the speech of independents.

 As a reminder, the Supreme Court case arose as a result of a film directed against then Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.  Citizens United was a nonprofit corporation that produced the film, and there was debate whether this was a "documentary" or an "electioneering communication," as well as whether distribution via video on demand constituted "public distribution" of the film.  The Supreme Court found that the film was indeed an "electioneering communication" and that VOD was likewise a public distribution of the film.  Thus, Citizens United ran smack up against the FEC prohibition on independent corporate political expenditures.

Continue Reading “Citizens United”: The Supreme Court Decision One Year Later

With only four and a half months until the start of the first radio license renewal cycle, broadcasters need to start to consider the processing time for license renewal applications and its implications – particularly if they are considering the purchase or sale of the station with a license renewal due in the near future.  The FCC has a processing policy that, in most cases, will forbid the closing of the sale of a broadcast station once the license renewal for that station has been filed – delaying any closing until the renewal has been granted.  Given that routine processing of a license renewal will take an absolute minimum of 90 days, and the processing can take much longer if there is a protest or other problem, closing of a contract for the sale of a broadcast station which is signed too close to the license renewal filing may be significantly delayed by the license renewal process.  Parties need to plan for such delays. 

As we wrote several months ago, the first set of license renewals are to be filed on or before June 1 of this year – for radio stations in  Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.  Owners planning a station sale in those states should be looking to finalize any deal have any plans to sell their station in the very near future to allow for the processing time necessary to get an FCC application approved and the transaction closed before the renewal is filed.  For instance, if a seller is thinking of selling his or her station in one of these states, and is in the process of negotiating a contract right now, the process contract would need to be completed very soon, and processing would need to run without a hitch, for a closing after "finality" of the FCC approval of the transaction to be possible before the renewal is granted.  Otherwise, the parties will need to be willing to wait until at least September to close.  To demonstrate, here is the likely timeline for an application for the sale of a station if the contract was signed by February 1, and an FCC application was filed by February 4.  The application would likely be on an FCC public notice late in the second week of February, triggering the required 30 day public comment period.  The end of the public comment period would be in mid-March, most likely putting an FCC grant in late March – if the application was uncontested, non-controversial and otherwise processed quickly by the FCC.  That would put finality (40 days after the public notice of the initial staff grant of the application, assuming no petitions for reconsideration of the grant, other appeals, or decisions by the FCC Commissioners to review the application) in mid-May. 

Continue Reading Start Planning Broadcast Transactions Around The License Renewal Processing Periods – Or Expect Closing Delays