Applications to participate in the auction of 144 new FM channels are to be filed at the FCC between January 31 and February 10, 2011.  The FCC today released a Public Notice setting out the dates and procedures to be used in the auction.  Upfront payments of the minimum bids for channels in the auction will be due on March 21.  The auction itself will begin on April 27 – a postponement of about a month from the dates originally proposed as the initially scheduled dates could have resulted in the auction running through this year’s NAB Convention, making it difficult for some entities to participate.  We had written about the initial announcement of the proposed auction here.  Note that the list of channels available in the auction has changed slightly, as a few channels originally listed for sale were deleted when it was discovered that they were not vacant or were otherwise not available to be sold.  Thus, the auction will include only 144 channels, not the 147 originally proposed.  The list of open channels is available here, and this list also sets out the minimum bids established for each channel.

To freeze the FCC database so as to allow applicants in the filing window to specify a transmitter site that will be protected from new applications, the FCC will freeze the filing of all applications for minor changes to existing FM stations during the filing window.  Thus, if you need a technical change in an FM station, get that application on file before the January 31-February 10 window.  The FCC Issued a Public Notice setting out the details of the freeze.  After the window, all subsequently filed applications for minor changes in existing stations will need to protect sites specified for the new channels during the window.  The FCC also froze – effective right now – any rulemaking proposal asking for a change in the coordinates assigned to any of the channels to be sold in the auction. 

Continue Reading FCC Announces Filing Window and Minimum Bids for Next Auction for 144 New FM Stations – And a Freeze on FM Minor Change Applications

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the CALM Act, directing the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations controlling the volume of commercials on television broadcast stations, cable systems, satellite, and other multichannel video programming providers. This bill was passed by the Senate in September.  Once signed by the President, the Federal Communications Commission will be required to adopt a rule to implement the legislation within one year, and the rule is to become effective within one year after its adoption. The FCC rule is to adopt parts of the ATSC A/85 standard, which seeks to target the volume of commercials in digital programming to the volume of dialogue (or other “anchor element”) in the accompanying program. An interesting description of the issues that must be addressed in determining just what is "loud," and for controlling that volume, can be found in a recent Wall Street Journal article (here, subscription may be required). 

Congressional estimates are that the costs of necessary equipment range from a few thousand dollars to $20,000 per device, for an aggregate industry cost of tens of millions of dollars. Congress anticipated that the costs may be burdensome for small cable operators and smaller market television broadcasters, and provided that waivers may be granted for financial hardship for one year renewable terms  The Commission may also grant waivers or exemptions from the rule that it adopts for classes of broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors under the FCC’s general waiver authority.

Continue Reading Congress Passes CALM Act to Restrict Loud Commercials

A recent FCC decision fining a station $10,000 for having an unattended main studio provides a good explanation of the staffing requirements for the main studio of broadcast stations.  While the fine in this case was evident – FCC inspectors having twice visited the main studio of a station to find no one there, and a representative of the licensee admitting to the FCC that the studio was not regularly manned as the licensee did not know that there was such a requirement – the decision explains the requirements of the FCC’s policies as to main studio staffing.   The Commission explains that the FCC requires "meaningful management and staff presence" at the main studio.  There must be both management and staff employees at the studio on a regular basis.  The decision reminds broadcasters that the management and staff employees need to report to the main studio on a daily basis, use it as their "home base", and spend substantial amounts of time there.  While the employees are not "chained to their desks", they must be at the studio regularly.  

While the decision does not specifically say so, the Commission has, in the past, said that there should be at least one management and one staff employee who use the studio as their principal place of business.  I like to think of it as the place where these employees have their desks, where they stop in every day to look at the pictures of their family that they keep there.  While the employees can go out and sell ads, produce programs, or go to Rotary meetings, while one employee is out of the office, another should be in the office, so that there is always a station employee present during normal business hours. So don’t leave that studio unattended, or you’ll risk the kind of punishment that the FCC issued here. 

The Copyright Office today announced an extension of time for the fling of comments in its inquiry into the possibe extension of Federal Copyright protection to pre-1972 sound recordings.  We provided a details of that proceeding here.  Internet radio operators and other digital music services that play significant numbers of pre-1972 sound recordings (particularly recordings first made in the United States), may want to comment in this proceeding, as the statutory royalty paid to SoundExchange currently does not appear to cover such recordings, though, should the Copyright Office recommend the extension of the law to cover the recordings, and if Congress takes actions to amend the Copyright Act as a result of this suggestion, royalty obligations could be extended to these recordings.  At the request of the RIAA, the Copyright Office has extended the deadline for comment until January 31, 2011.  Reply comments are now due on March 2, 2011.

I conducted a webinar on the FCC’s EEO rules for the Texas Association of Broadcasters on November 30, 2010.  In conducting the webinar, I reminded broadcasters of the many ways that their EEO compliance can be monitored by the FCC – either through EEO random audits, through mid-term EEO Reports on FCC Form 397 (which were filed by Texas TV stations this past April), or through the filings that are made at license renewal time (which comes up in April 2013 for Texas radio, and April 2014 for Texas TV).  In discussing the FCC’s EEO audit process, I mentioned that we were about due for another round of EEO audits from the FCC.  And sure enough, the FCC today gave notice of a new round of audits – though this time limited to Multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), principally cable systems.   A list of the systems to be audited in this round of EEO audits can be found in the FCC’s Public Notice about the audit, here.

The PowerPoint presentation from the TAB webinar is available here.  For more detailed information about the FCC’s EEO policies for broadcasters, you can review the Davis Wright Tremaine’s Guide to the Basics of The FCC’s EEO Rules.  For details of the annual EEO public inspection file report, which, by April 1 of each year, stations in Texas need to place in their public inspection files and post on their websites, see our most recent EEO Public Inspection File Report advisory for stations in New England, Georgia, Alabama, Minnesota, Montana and the Dakotas, which have public file reports due to be placed in their public files today. 

The FCC today started an examination of the future of the spectrum currently used by broadcast television, beginning the formal process of implementing the ideas raised in its Broadband Plan of repurposing some of that spectrum for use by wireless broadband technologies. Specifically, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking comment on a number of issues. While the full text of the FCC’s order has not been released, many of the issues for consideration can be gleaned from the comments made at the FCC meeting. In the initial presentation made about the NPRM, it was stated that the principal issues to be addressed in the NPRM were:

  • Allowing new primary allocations in the television spectrum for fixed and mobile wireless users.
  • Providing a framework that would allow two or more broadcast television stations to share a single 6 MHz channel, retaining full must-carry rights for each station, while allowing for the return of spectrum to the FCC to be auctioned for wireless uses
  • Looking at ways to increase the value of VHF television channels (channels 2 through 13) for DTV use, including proposals to allow stations operating on such channels to operate at higher power and to increase performance standards for indoor antennas

Co-primary uses could be important for many TV users, as currently LPTV and TV translator stations are secondary services, implying that such services might be preempted by new primary wireless users.  The enhancement of the VHF spectrum would be important to any attempt to dedicate significant spectrum to wireless broadband without substantial disruption to over-the-air television, as without the use of those channels (which are underutilized, particularly in urban markets, as they have proved to be very susceptible to interference and do not provide as broad coverage as VHF analog service did), the ability to repack the TV spectrum to clear portions of the spectrum for wireless would be very restricted in the major metropolitan areas where any spectrum crunch is likely to be most acute. 

As FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stated, this was an efficient presentation on an important issue. The explanation of the proposals took far less time than each of the Commissioner’s individual statements, all of which raised important issues that will be addressed in this proceeding.   The FCC public notice about this proceeding is available by clicking here.  But an examination of each of the Commissioner’s statements (which are available through the links on their names, below) is important to understand the scope of the issues to be addressed by the FCC. 

Continue Reading FCC Adopts Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Looking to Reallocate Some TV Spectrum to Wireless Broadband

Many station owners think they can adopt any name, positioning statement or slogan for their station so long as no one else in the market is using the exact same name or slogan.  That thinking is often incorrect, and can be very costly if a name is adopted and has to be changed later because it infringes on someone else’s intellectual property rights.  Nicknames and slogans used in station advertising or promotion are controlled by trademark law.  Even a station’s call sign, which must be approved by the FCC, cannot be too similar to an in-market competitor’s call sign without running afoul of trademark law.  You may have read about recent litigation concerning the station nicknames "Bob" and "Bob FM."  In that case, there is apparent contour overlap between two separately owned stations using the same name.  But trademark law can come into play even when stations are not in the same market and do not have overlapping contours.

Trademark rights can be established in one of two ways.  The first station to use a name or slogan can establish priority within that station’s geographic market or contour.  Alternatively, one can file an application for registration of a station name or slogan at the US Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO"), and thereby obtain nationwide rights in that name or slogan, if no one else had prior use or a prior application.  Since trademark applications can be filed on an intent-to-use basis, a station can establish priority for a mark it is not yet using.  This is why a trademark search is so important prior to using a mark. 

Continue Reading Looking for a New Positioning Statement, Slogan or Name for Your Station? – Consult a Trademark Attorney First

Yesterday, the FCC released four different items to implement the changes enacted by Congress in the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, better known as STELA. With one item addressing significantly viewed out-of-market stations, two items regarding signal prediction and measurements for the reception of DTV signals, and a Public Notice requesting comments and data for a report to Congress, the FCC has wrapped up several open issues regarding STELA. As we have written about previously, here and here (among others), in addition to extending the blanket copyright license allowing satellite television providers to deliver distant signals to "unserved" viewers unable to receive a signal from their local network affiliate, STELA raised a few additional issues that the FCC needed to address through various rule makings.  With yesterday’s flurry of activity, the FCC has now addressed those issues.

With the first item, the Commission modified the significantly viewed rules that allow for the importation of distant signals in certain circumstances.  The item clarifies that a satellite subscriber need only receive the local-into-local package as a precondition for that subscriber to receive a significantly viewed station, they don’t have to receive the specific local (i.e., in-market) affiliate of the same network as a precondition to receive a distant station affiliated with the same network.  The item further clarifies that STELA no longer requires that equivalent bandwidth be dedicated to in-market and significantly viewed stations, so much as there is an HD format requirement.  Accordingly, subscribers can only receive a significantly viewed HD signal, the satellite carrier must carry the HD signal of the local station affiliated with the same network.  In reaching its decision, the Commission was cognizant of the tension between the protection of localism and Congress’s intention of achieving closer parity between the rules for satellite TV providers and cable TV providers, and it worked to reach a balance between those two sometimes competing goals.  A copy of the Order is available here.

Continue Reading FCC Releases Multiple Items Implementing Rules for Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA)

At the urging of virtually the entire broadcast and cable industry, as well as the communications engineering community, the FCC today granted an extension of time for broadcasters and other EAS participants to come into compliance with the new CAP reception requirements – putting off the need for compliance until September 30, 2011.  CAP (the Common Alerting Protocol) is a new format to be used for collecting and distributing emergency communications alerts to all communications platforms.  The FCC, when it adopted CAP, mandated compliance within 180 days of the publication of technical standards for the CAP-formatted alerts by FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency).  Those standards were published on September 30, 2010.  Immediately, questions arose about whether the entire communications industry could be ready to make the transition within that 180 day period (see our post here raising those questions after the FEMA adoption).

Specifically, there were questions about the ability of all the EAS participants being able to budget for the purchase of the equipment and to make those purchases and to then install the new equipment within the specified period.   But more fundamentally, there were questions of whether there was even equipment ready to be deployed, as there was an issue as to whether FEMA and the FCC had to first certify CAP-enabled equipment, before it could be sold.  Those questions remain unresolved.  In today’s order, the FCC, while stating that it does not anticipate a further extension of the deadline, does state that it will initiate a rulemaking to determine if CAP equipment must be certified under Part 11 of the Commission’s rules.  As part of that rulemaking, the Commission will seek comment on whether this extension is sufficient to give all EAS participants time to make the change.  As the FCC repeatedly states that it does not intend any further extensions of the deadline, don’t count on more delays.  But watch this proceeding as, while the Commission states that they intend to complete the process before the new deadline, unanticipated delays could conceivably further extend the mandatory adoption date.