Congress last week adopted a bill important to all US media companies that produce content that can be received overseas.  This would include anyone with content on their website (including user generated content) that could potentially give rise to a legal judgment overseas.  As explained in detail in Davis Wright Tremaine’s memo on the act – the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (“SPEECH Act”) – companies and individuals were bringing lawsuits, many in London, against publications from the United States, finding liability for speech that would be protected by First Amendment principles here.  Other US companies were facing liability for user generated content posted on their website that would be protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from libel actions in the United States.  This practice was caused "libel tourism", as people would go in search of the country where their case would be strongest – knowing that US law would not sustain their claims.  These cases often resulted in liability even if the US publisher had only minimal distribution in the foreign country where the case was brought.  Before this legislation, when parties were successful in foreign litigation, they could enforce their foreign judgments in US Courts against US citizens or companies, and the US parties would have no defense, as US courts would normally not re-try a final decision from a foreign court.  This legislation gives US Courts, before a foreign judgment involving speech matters can be enforced in the US, the authority to review the judgment to make sure it would have been permissible under US law.  Read the DWT memo, here, for more information about this important legislation. 

The FCC has issued another in a series of Notice of Proposed Rule Makings aimed at implementing changes to the satellite television rules brought about by the recently enacted Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 or "STELA".  In particular, by its NPRM issued last week, the Commission proposes a predictive model to provide presumptive determinations as to whether a household is considered unserved by a local network-affiliated digital station.  The model proposed is a point-to-point predictive model that will allow parties to determine whether a particular location has the ability to receive an over-the-air digital television broadcast signal at the intensity level necessary for service.  The predictive model proposed by the Commission is based on the current model used for predicting reception of analog signals, which uses Longley-Rice to predict signal propagation. 

In proposing this predictive model, the Commission tentatively concludes that the current standard for an outdoor antenna should continue be used in predicting digital television signal strengths at individual locations.  Although STELA revised the definition of an "unserved" household by changing the previous statutory reference to a "conventional, stationary outdoor rooftop antenna" to refer simply to the use of an "antenna" (as we mentioned in our earlier blog), the Commission’s recent NPRM finds that the Act’s specification of the DTV standard incorporated in the FCC’s rules implies the use of an outdoor antenna to receive service.  Therefore, the predictive model the Commission proposes in its NPRM for determining reception of over-the-air digital television signals will continue to include the outdoor antenna standard (with some adjustments for height).  That said, and as the Commission itself notes, given that both of the satellite television providers are moving towards providing local-into-local service in most markets, the need for making determinations as to which households are "unserved" (and hence eligible to receive distant signals), is diminishing, although there are still a number of markets where such local-into-local service has yet to be implemented. 

Although STELA also narrowed the unserved standard to focus just on the reception of signals from an in-market affiliate (rather than simply any affiliate) and to address the notion of multicast digital streams, these changes do not impact the Commission’s adoption of a predictive model, and thus were not explicitly addressed by the NPRM.  However, the Commission does include a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making to address issues regarding on-site measurements in the event that a subscriber requests an on-site signal strength test following application of the predictive model.  Here again, the Commission proposes to limit measurements to outdoor antennas.  Comments on the Commission’s proposed rule changes will be due 20 days after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, which, as of this writing, has not yet occurred. 

Continue Reading FCC Begins Proceedings to Implement Changes to Satellite Television Rules as a Result of STELA

In 2006, the FAA proposed requiring that many communications users seek FAA No Hazard Determinations not only before they make changes in the height of a tower, but also prior to frequency or power changes.  The FAA sought to review applications to determine if proposals would create any interference to frequencies used by the by aircraft and by the FAA for air navigation purposes. This review would be in addition to any review that the FCC made of interference considerations.  Many communications companies and engineering firms argued that this second layer of frequency review was unnecessary; and certain engineering groups contended that the FAA’s interference programs were not accurate – finding interference where none existed.  After over 4 years of consideration,the FAA has now decided that most of the frequency blocks that it was considering did not really pose a threat to air navigation, with one exception.  The FAA determined that interference problems do arise from FM operations, and thus the FAA did not dismiss their proposal to require its approval of FM changes – even where no tower height changes are planned.

The FAA, however, apparently will not be making this decision alone.  Instead, that FAA is coordinating with the FCC and NTIA (an Administration in the Commerce Department that coordinates between various government agencies that use spectrum) to adopt policies that will govern the potential for interference from FM stations to FAA operations.   The FAA’s Notice says that more information about what is to be proposed for FM stations should be forthcoming soon.  This can be a real issue for FM stations, especially ones proposing significant power increases or frequency changes in congested metropolitan areas with numerous public, private and military airfields in the vicinity. 

Continue Reading FAA Working On Proposals to Require FAA Coordination For FM Changes Even Where There is No Change in Tower Height – Rejects That Requirement for Other Services

The FCC’s Annual Regulatory Fee web site, available at  www.fccfees.com, is now active and indicates that the Reg Fees are due by 11:59 PM EDT on August 31, 2010.  A further public notice, which will include detailed instructions on how to access the FCC’s Fee Filer database and remit the payment of the fees, should be forth coming from the Commission, likely by the end of the week.  But in the meantime stations can plug their call signs into this "look-up" database and confirm the amounts owed for each facility.  Once the FCC’s full public notice is released we will have more details and will post a further advisory on paying the fees, but for now it appears that deadline for this year’s Regulatory Fees has been set for August 31st.  Stations should plan their payments accordingly and be sure to avoid the automatic 25% penalty for late payment for any fees paid after midnight on August 31st.

The FCC today announced a $1,000,000 Consent Decree with Univision Radio to settle payola investigations underway at both the FCC and the Department of Justice.  Payola, or "pay for play" as it is called in the FCC Press Release issued today, is a violation of FCC rules and Federal criminal law, which both prohibit the broadcast of program content for which payment was received without disclosing the receipt of that consideration.  The payment of money to programming employees in exchange for the playing of certain music on the radio has been the situation where pay-for-play has received the most publicity.  Where payment is made for playing a song, without acknowledging to the public that the station’s decision to play the music was based on payments and not on the station’s determination of the merit of the music being played, then a violation exists.  In many cases, it is station employees who receive the payment, sometime unknown to station management.  But where the station has not taken sufficient steps to guard against pay-for-play situations by its employees, the licensee can still face penalties.  The Consent Decree sets out specific steps for Univision to take to make sure that the situations alleged to have occurred at the company’s stations don’t reoccur in the future.

The Consent Decree is virtually identical to the $12.5 million in settlements reached three years ago with four of the country’s largest radio broadcast companies.  At that time, we published an advisory that explored each of the provisions of the Consent Decree and the obligations that it imposed on the broadcasters that were involved – and suggested that all stations use it as a Guide to their operations to insure that they, too, don’t find themselves facing a similar situation in the future.  As payola seems to run in cycles, check out our Guide and make sure that you are taking steps to insure compliance with the FCC rules and policies on payola.

While it’s summer in Washington and things should slow down, the discussion of the need for wireless spectrum for broadband, and the related question of whether to reclaim television spectrum for that use, continues unabated.  This week, the FCC released a new report finding that between 14 and 24 million Americans have no access to broadband, and finding that a disproportionate number of those people are in rural areas.  While this report to Congress is meant as a factual report on the status of broadband deployment, and not a document that details solutions to the lack of access, both the statement about the report from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and the FCC Press Release summarizing the report, suggest that one way to address this shortcoming is to encourage the deployment of wireless broadband.

While the FCC did not, in these documents specifically mention the TV spectrum as a source for that wireless capacity, as we have written before, the FCC’s Broadband Plan looks to the television spectrum for the majority of the spectrum that they hope to reclaim for broadband use.   Joining the FCC’s call for more spectrum was an even higher power.  The White House recently issued a Presidential Memorandum supporting the idea that the FCC free up 500 mhz of spectrum for wireless broadband purposes.  While the Memorandum tasked government agencies with finding ways to free spectrum that they are using to meet this perceived need, it also made clear that the government would look to meet part of the need by reclaiming spectrum from non-governmental users.  And they are not the only ones getting into the Act. 

Continue Reading FCC Wants More Wireless Broadband from TV Spectrum – Congress and the White House Get In on the Action

The broadcast trade press has recently been full of talk of the possibility of reaching a settlement with the recording industry on the adoption of a Performance Royalty for broadcast stations -paying performers and record companies for the use of music by radio stations (on top of the fees already paid through ASCAP, BMI and SESAC to composers).  The latest controversy was set off by comments made at the Conclave Radio Conference by Bonneville Radio’s CEO Bruce Reese, who has also been prominent in NAB activities, who suggested that broadcasters were on the defensive in Congress, and that a good settlement was better than a bad legislative outcome.  Other broadcasters have disagreed with Reese’s assessment, asking why broadcasters would be willing to settle when they have a majority of Congress on their side, having signed the NAB-supported resolution opposing the royalty.  Which side is right?

It should be emphasized that, even though broadcast groups have done an amazing job rounding up support for their opposition to the "performance tax" – signing up far more than a majority of the House of Representatives on a resolution opposing the royalty – that resolution is non-binding.  Congressmen can change their mind, and of even more concern, the proposed performance royalty can end up getting tagged on to some must-pass legislation that Congress needs to adopt before the end of the year.  Congress has many budget bills that need to pass to fund the government’s operation, and these huge bills have a way of attracting all sorts of unrelated matters being folded into their provisions.  With leaders of many important committees in the House and Senate being supporters of the royalty, its easy to imagine that one of these bills can end up with performance royalty language included.  While one broadcast trade publication suggests that NAB lobbyists are paid to stop this sort of thing from happening, it is unrealistic to believe that the NAB is invincible, as provisions on unrelated bills can pop up seemingly out of nowhere and surprise everyone, especially when pushed through by powerful congressional leaders who less committed representatives are unwilling to challenge (especially when to do so might mean voting against some important legislation to which the performance royalty is attached).  Congressman simply will not vote down the defense appropriations bill just because there is a performance tax attached.  This kind of maneuver is of particular concern given that many of these bills may well be considered after the election in November, during a "lame duck" session of Congress when, especially this year, there will be many representatives who may not be around again in January to face the wrath of voters (or of broadcasters) who may be disappointed by their final votes.

Continue Reading Talk of A Settlement on the Terrestrial Radio Performance Royalty – What Would Broadcasters Get?

Last week, the FCC’s Media Bureau granted waivers of the requirement that television tuners be capable of receiving both analog and digital television transmissions, but only with respect to tuners meant for mobile use.  The FCC justified the waivers of the All Channel Receiver Act given the technological constraints that an analog reception chip would put on mobile receivers meant for the reception of the Mobile/Handheld Digital Television Standard (A/153) signals.  This signal is being tested now to allow television broadcasters to provide mobile programming in addition to their current over-the-air broadcast signals – a service planned for commercial roll out at the end of the year.  These waivers, granted in response to requests by Dell and LG Electronics, not only signal the seriousness with which this new service is being regarded, but also provide evidence of the coming end of analog television, now used solely by LPTV stations.   

In considering the waiver, the Commission recognized that the only television stations that would be affected by the lack of an analog tuner were LPTV stations, and no such stations opposed the waiver request.  As one of the waiver proponents noted, analog television signals were not meant for mobile reception, and thus the lack of such a receiver in a mobile device was no big loss.  Moreover, the FCC noted that the digital conversion of LPTV stations has already begun, in that it no longer accepts applications for new analog LPTV stations.  The Commission reiterated that it will soon set a date for the final conversion of the last analog LPTV stations to digital.  Thus, the failure to receive analog would be, at most, a temporary issue.

Continue Reading FCC Authorizes Mobile DTV Receivers Without Analog Tuners – Further Signals of the End of Analog LPTV, and Raises Questions of Recapture of TV Spectrum for Broadband

As we wrote earlier this week, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday struck down part of the FCC’s indecency rules, finding that the rules were too vague and had an undue chilling effect on broadcasters.  DWT’s First Amendment experts have now taken a closer look at the Court’s decision in Fox Television Stations v. FCC and have released an advisory with further analysis.  The advisory, available here, provides further details and insight into the decision from Robert Corn-Revere and Ronald G. London.  Given that there are several other indecency cases still pending before the courts, including the Second Circuit, it will be interesting to see what impact this decision has on those pending cases and whether the FCC’s indecency rules can ultimately withstand constitutional scrutiny. 

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today struck down the FCC’s indecency rules, finding that the rules were so vague as to not put broadcasters on notice of what programming was prohibited and what was permitted.  Today’s decision was reached following a remand of this case to the Second Circuit by the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court’s decision did not resolve all questions about the FCC’s rules, instead only deciding that the lower court’s prior decision voiding the rules was not justified.  The prior Second Circuit decision had not been decided on a constitutional basis, but instead it was based on the Court’s perception that the FCC had failed to justify its departure from prior FCC precedent that had excused broadcasters from liability for fleeting expletives.  The Supreme Court found that the departure from prior precedent was justified.  The Supreme Court left open the issue of whether the rules were constitutional, and sent the case back to the Second Circuit for further consideration.  In today’s decision, the Second Circuit takes up the constitutional review left open by the Supreme Court, and has determined that the vagueness of the FCC’s guidelines and the inconsistency in its decisions chilled the First Amendment rights of broadcasters in violation of the First Amendment. 

The Court, in reaching its decision, looked at a number of the Commission decisions on indecency which have arisen since the Commission started its enhanced enforcement of these rules in 2003.  After reviewing the cases, the Court felt that the FCC could not logically articulate when the use of certain prohibited words would be punished.  In one passage, the Court asks how the FCC can find that the broadcast use of expletives in the fictional movie Saving Private Ryan were permissible as the words were essential "to the realism and immediacy of the film experience for viewers", yet at the same time find that these same words did not rise to that same level of importance when spoken by real people in the PBS documentary The Blues.  The Court then cited numerous instances where broadcasters felt that their speech had been chilled – often refraining from airing significant programming for fear of FCC fines.  For instance, the Court cited one station that refused to cover a political debate as a candidate had previously used a forbidden word in a prior debate, and another case where stations did not run a documentary about emergency workers and the 9-11 tragedy as the documentary contained some actual footage from the Twin Towers, where emergency workers used some of those forbidden words. 

Continue Reading Court of Appeals Strikes Down FCC Indecency Rules