Continuing its implementation of STELA (a.k.a. the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010), the Commission last week released an Order granting the application of satellite television provider DISH Network, LLC, and allowing DISH to once again import distant, out-of-market broadcast television signals.  In its Order approving DISH’s application, the Commission agreed that the DBS provider:  1.) had initiated local-into-local carriage in all 210 markets, including 29 markets in which it had not previously offered local signals; 2.) is predicted to provide a good quality satellite signal to 90% or more of the households in each of the 29 previously unserved markets; and 3.) that there are no technical failures that would preclude DISH’s continued compliance with these first two elements.  Having met these requirements, DISH has satisfied the statutory requirements established by STELA and may now once again avail itself of the compulsory copyright license in order to offer distant television broadcast signals to qualified subscribers.  With the Commission’s Order, the previous court ruling from 2006 that had barred DISH (then Echostar Communications) from offering distant signals is effectively moot and DISH is back in the business of importing distant signals.  This is a big step for DISH and one that it pushed hard to include in STELA.  And of course the upside is that now DISH subscribers in all 210 television markets have access to local television stations via DBS — provided that DISH and the local stations have reached agreements for carriage, which was not yet the case according to the one party who commented in the FCC’s proceeding. 

In another sign of just how closely the FCC monitors contests conducted by broadcast stations, the FCC this week issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (a notice of a fine of $4000) to Nassau Broadcasting for being imprecise in the wording of the contest rules for a contest to be held at one of its stations.  In the rules of the contest, the station stated that entries would be accepted "through June 13, 2008."  In fact, the contest was conducted on the evening of June 12, and the station cut off entries to the contest on June 12.  When a listener went to enter the contest on June 13, and was told that she could not enter as the prize had already been awarded, the listener filed a complaint at the FCC.  The FCC, reading the language "through June 13" to mean that listeners could enter the contest up to and including that day, fined the licensee $4000 for misleading its listeners as to the proper rules for the contest it conducted.  This is another indication of just how seriously the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau is taking the enforcement of Section 73.1216 of the Commission’s rules, which requires licensees "to fully and accurately disclose the material terms" of any contests that it conducts, and to "conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised."  Broadcasters need to be very precise in their wording of contest rules, and make sure that they carefully observe the details of the rules that they adopt.

In this case, it seems likely that the licensee was simply imprecise in its wording – stating that entries would be taken "through June 13" when it meant "before June 13."  This would have seemed evident from the fact that the rules said that the winner would be announced on the morning show on June 13.  Clearly, if the winner was going to be announced on the morning of June 13, it wouldn’t do much good entering after that time.  But the ambiguity in the rules is construed by the FCC against the party who prepared the rules – as is evident from the finding in this case that these rules did not fully and accurately describe the rules of the contest (and actually holding the contest on the night of the 12th instead of the morning of the 13th probably didn’t help much).  So what should a broadcaster do to make sure that this kind of ambiguity does not hit them in one of their contests?

Continue Reading A $4000 Fine After a Complaint About a Broadcast Contest – Make Sure that Contest Rules are Precise

Are you ready to file your next license renewal application?  It seems like the last license renewal cycle just ended (in fact, the last cycle is not over, as evidenced by the fact that the FCC in the last week has released several decisions dealing with late-filed renewals from the last cycle, and many TV stations still have license renewals that have not been granted due to pending indecency issues).  Nevertheless, a whole new cycle of Form 303 license renewal applications will soon be upon us – beginning in less than a year. The cycle begins with radio stations in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, who are due to file their license renewal applications on June 1, 2011.  Then, every two months thereafter, stations in another group of states files applications, until April 1, 2014 when radio stations in Pennsylvania and Delaware bring the radio renewal cycle to a close.  Television station renewal applications will be due on a state-by-state basis beginning one year later – starting with TVs in DC and the same three states in 2012.  A schedule for the radio renewal filings is available here.  With these deadlines almost upon us, what should stations be doing now to get ready? 

In the last renewal cycle, the biggest source of problems dealt with public file issues.  Remember, stations need to certify in their renewal applications that their public file is complete and accurate and, if it is not, to specify areas where there are deficiencies.  In the last cycle, many stations in particular had issues with Quarterly Programs Issues Lists that were missing from the files, in many cases incurring fines of $10,000 or more where there were many such reports missing from the files.  These reports are also very important, as they are the only required official records to demonstrate the programming that a station broadcast to serve the public interest needs of its service area.  If that service is ever challenged, you will need the reports to demonstrate how your station’s programming met the needs and interests of your city of license and the surrounding area.  Check out our last advisory on the Quarterly Programs Issues Lists, here.

Continue Reading FCC License Renewal Application Cycle Begins in Less Than A Year – What Stations Should Be Doing to Get Ready

Even though there has been a request to put on hold the FCC’s EEO enforcement (about which we wrote here), filed by a prominent Washington DC organization that promotes the participation of minorities and new entrants in broadcast employment and ownership positions, the FCC today announced that it is launching another round of EEO audits – this time only auditing radio stations. The FCC has said that it will audit about 5% of all broadcast stations annually to make sure that they are widely disseminating information about job openings, recruiting from all community organizations in their service areas, and educating their communities about job openings through so-called "supplemental efforts."  To ensure compliance with these obligations, the Commission has launched this round of EEO audits, with responses due from audited stations on or before September 27.

The list of audited stations is available here.  The FCC’s letter setting out the information sought from the audited stations is here.  The Commission also released a Public Notice reminding all broadcasters with 5 or more full-time employees that, if they have a website, that they are required to post their annual EEO report on that site.   For more information about the FCC’s EEO requirements, see our comprehensive memo on the FCC’s EEO requirements, available here.

While most of the FCC’s political broadcasting rules have remain unchanged for almost 20 years, each year there are a few new wrinkles that arise, and seemingly a few misconceptions that make the rounds among advertising agencies that work with political candidates.  One such misconception that seems to be circulating this year is that an ad for a state or local political candidate does not need to have their voice or picture to be a "use" under FCC rules.  Only "uses" are entitled to lowest unit rates and subject to the no censorship provisions.  For some reason, agencies in several states have tried to convince broadcasters that, as long as a spot has a sponsorship identification at the end (and, for television, a textual sponsorship identification 4% of screen height for 4 seconds), that spot is a "use."  But that is not correct.  A "use" requires that the recognizable voice or picture of a candidate be in the spot – and that is true even for spots for state and local candidates.  Some advertisers may be confused by the change in Federal laws (now itself almost a decade old) that required that Federal candidates identify themselves in their ads and personally state that they approved the message of the ad,  Perhaps some of the advertisers think that, because the law for Federal candidate is so detailed, and because it does not specifically cover state candidates (though several state laws now have imposed the same obligation on state and local candidates in their states), there is no requirement at all for state and local candidates to appear in their ads.  But they are not correct – for a spot to be a use, a candidate him or herself must have a recognizable voice or image in that ad.

While it is not illegal for a station to run a state or local candidate’s ad when the ad does not have a candidates voice in it, there are important ramifications for the station if the spot is not a "use".  First, without the candidate’s voice or picture, the ad is not entitled to lowest unit rates.  There has been some controversy, not settled by the Federal Election Commission and perhaps subject to interpretations under state election commission rules, about whether a station that charges a candidate lowest unit rates for a spot not entitled to such rates may be making a corporate campaign contribution to that candidate, which is prohibited under Federal law and in most states.  Most importantly for the stations, if the spot does not have the candidates voice or picture in it, the spot is not covered by the ‘No censorship" provision of Section 315 of the Communications Act.  That provision prohibits a station from rejecting a candidate’s ad based on its content.  But, because the station can’t reject the ad based on its content, the station has no liability for the contents of the ad.  Conversely, if the ad does not have the appearance by the candidate in it, then the station is free to reject it based on its content, and thus the station could theoretically have liability for the content of the ad.  As we approach a heated election season where stations don’t want the obligation to check the veracity of every claim made by one candidate about an opposing candidate in an attack ad, stations should be careful to insure that spots purchased by candidates are in fact uses, containing the recognizable voice or picture of the candidate – even for state and local candidates. 

Continue Reading Remember that Political Ads By State and Local Candidates Need to Have Candidate’s Recognizable Voice or Picture to Be a Use

The FCC recently fined a station $8500 for not having an operational EAS system for almost two years, and for not having a main studio that was manned during normal business hours. The EAS fine was evident, as the station did not dispute that it did not have an operational EAS system in place.  It did, however, challenge the conclusion that it should be fined for having a main studio  that was not manned during normal business hours.  The licensee argued that the studio was not manned because of the precarious financial state of the station following the termination of an LMA. It said that, when faced with the choice of taking the station off the air because it could not afford to pay a staff to man the main studio or violating the staffing requirements, it decided to violate the rules.  The FCC said that the lack of financial resources was not an excuse for operating within the rules, and thus issued the fine (though reducing the cumulative amount of the fine based on the station’s inability to pay more).

The Commission did suggest that the station could have asked for a waiver of the main studio staffing requirements based on its financial distress (though it did not say if it would have granted such a request).  But making the choice to violate the FCC’s rules without even trying to ask for permission was essentially asking for trouble.  The FCC’s policies require that stations have main studios manned during normal business hours,  Two employees are supposed to be based out of that studio, using it as their principal place of business, and at least one of them must be physically present and available at the studio during the business day.  Observe those rules, or risk an FCC fine. 

So you want to start streaming your radio station on the Internet?  Or maybe you want to start a whole new Internet radio station.  In a session at last week’s Texas Association of Broadcasters Annual Convention in Austin, Dave Oxenford talked about the legal considerations starting an Internet radio station, while Chris Dusterhoff of Bryan Broadcasting in Bryan/College Station, Texas talked about some of the technical and business issues in doing so.  A copy of Dave’s PowerPoint presentation from that session is available here.  The presentation addresses some of the issues that you need to consider, including the music royalties that will be required from most webcasting operations. 

In addition to the issues involved in streaming your signal on the Internet, broadcasters have a host of other legal issues that they should consider in connection with their digital presence.  Issues that arise with service marks and copyrights, with employment issues, social media, privacy and sponsorship disclosure were all addressed in Dave’s presentation on the Legal Issues in the Cyber Jungle.  A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is available here.  Dave also mentioned that stations with websites featuring user-generated content, to help insulate themselves from copyright infringement that might occur in the posts from their audience members, should take advantage of the registration with the Copyright Office that may provide safe harbor protection if a station follows the rules and takes down offending content when identified by a copyright holder.  The Copyright Office instructions for registration can be found here.   Additional information about use of music on the Internet can be found in Davis Wright Tremaine’s Guide to The Basics of Music Licensing in a Digital Age. 

The FCC now has sent notices to broadcast stations about their obligation to pay regulatory fees by August 31.  Last week, it issued three public notices about the fees – one simply announcing that the fees are due by that date, one setting out the procedures for filing the regulatory fees, and a third reminding all filers that they need to pay using the FCC’s on-line Fee Filer system.   The FCC’s website is operational, and broadcasters can begin the process of completing the necessary filings.  Davis Wright Tremaine has summarized all the filing obligations in an advisory on the FCC’s regulatory fee filing obligations sent out last week, and available here.  To avoid delays in processing applications, and to avoid fees and penalties, be sure to pay your fees on time.  And, as set forth in the DWT Advisory, don’t forget to figure out the fees due for your broadcast auxiliary stations (e.g. your STLs and Remote Pick-ups), as these licenses are not contained in the fee notice sent to you by the FCC.  So be prepared for the August 31 deadline. 

The FCC today upheld the cancellation of a television station’s license for being off the air for over one year.  Section 312(g) of the Communications Act instructs the Commission to cancel a license of any broadcast station that has not transmitted "broadcast signals" for over one year, unless there is a public interest reason for allowing the station to keep its license.  In this case, the television station was off the air after it lost its affiliation with a shopping network.  While searching for a way to profitably operate, the station remained silent for over a year, only coming on the air once to broadcast a test pattern for one day,  The FCC’s staff found that a test pattern did not constitute a "broadcast signal", and canceled the license several years ago (we wrote about that cancellation here).  Today’s decision denied reconsideration of the earlier conclusion, finding that the requirement for the transmission of a broadcast signal required more than a test pattern.  The decision characterized the test pattern as an "equipment test" as opposed to a "broadcast signal."  Thus, the decision upholds the cancellation of the license, and denies the station owner the opportunity to sell the station to a prospective buyer that it had located. 

The decision found that the fact that the station was having financial difficulty was an insufficient public interest reason to justify keeping the license effective after the end of the one year period.  Neither the death of a shareholder nor the location of a buyer for the station provided sufficient justification to the FCC for the preservation of the station’s license after its one year without programming.  While this decision may still be appealed to the full Commission and the courts, perhaps to clarify once and for all what the statute means by the "transmission of a broadcast signal," for now, the law appears clear – if a station is forced over the air for something near a year, resume operations with real programming.  A test pattern will not be sufficient to preserve your license.. 

The debate over the proposed performance royalty (or "performance tax") on over-the-air radio is once again front page news in all of the broadcast trade press, as radio executives who make up the NAB Radio Board reportedly are making their way to Washington, DC to decide on whether to pursue a settlement with those seeking to impose the royalty.  What’s on the table?  Reportedly a very low (perhaps 1% of revenue as reported in some of the trades) royalty for terrestrial radio, a royalty set in legislation for at least a several year period.  In exchange, broadcasters would get a break on streaming royalties and a push towards getting working FM chips into cell phones – a potentially big audience boost for radio operators.  But from all we have heard, this is not, by any means, a done deal.  What will happen?

We wrote just a few weeks ago about a proposed settlement and why it might or might not be a good idea, and received many comments on our post.  As was clear from the comments, many are not sure why a settlement of any sort makes sense at this point, when the NAB has so far bottled up the royalty in Congress, and where the next Congress is, at least in the eyes of many, going to be far more Republican and, in some people’s eyes, a lot less likely to impose the royalty.  Proponents of a settlement respond that the royalty is not necessarily a partisan issue, with Republicans such as Senator Hatch of Utah, Congressman Issa of California, and many members of the Tennessee delegation taking strong positions in favor of the royalty.  So, just because there is a change in Congress (if it in fact occurs) does not necessarily mean that the current Performance Rights Act or some other version of the royalty proposal would be dead.  Moreover, as we wrote in our recent post, there still is the remainder of the current Congress to get through, including the "lame duck" session after the election, when Congressmen who may no longer have jobs will be voting on much legislation, including many big budget bills in which a performance royalty rider can get hidden. 

Continue Reading NAB Board Comes to DC to Discuss Radio Performance Royalties – Is There a Deal in the Works?