By December 1, 2009, all commercial and noncommercial digital television (DTV) stations must electronically file a FCC Form 317 with the Commission reporting on whether the station has provided any ancillary and supplementary services over their digital spectrum during the twelve-month period ending on September 30, 2009.

Under the Commission’s Rules, in addition to providing free over-the-air broadcast television, DTV stations are permitted to offer services of any nature, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, on an ancillary or supplementary basis.  Some examples of the kinds of services that may be provided include computer software distribution, data transmissions, teletext, interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, audio signals, and subscription video.

All DTV stations — regardless of whether the station holds a DTV license or is operating pursuant to Special Temporary Authority (STA), program test authority (PTA), or some other authority — must file a Form 317 reporting whether or not it provided such services and whether it generated any income from such services. If the station did provide such ancillary services, then the FCC wants to know about it. More importantly, if the station generated revenue from the provision of those services, then the FCC wants its 5% cut of the gross revenues derived from such service.  The Form 317 is very brief, soliciting information about the license and the types of services provided, if any, and must be filed electronically through the CDBS filing system.

Continue Reading DTV Station Reminder: FCC Form 317 Reporting of Ancillary Services Due Dec. 1st

What will be the issues that broadcasters need to be concerned about in next year’s Media Ownership proceeding?  To get a clue, broadcasters should watch and listen to the second day of the FCC workshop on multiple ownership, featuring members of various public interest groups in Washington the week before last (watch it on the FCC website, here).  These workshops, as we wrote here, were held to start the process on the Commission’s upcoming Quadrennial Review of the multiple ownership rules.   The representatives who testified on this panel discussed the issues that they thought should be reviewed, and facts that they thought should be collected, in order for the Commission to successfully complete the ownership review required by Congress.  As these Washington "insiders" are sure to be the ones filing comments in the proceeding and lobbying the Commission on the issues, the agenda of these organizations are likely to set the grounds for debate in the upcoming proceeding.  From watching this hearing, there are bound to be a number of contentious issues that will come up.

The panel was made up of representatives of five different Washington public interest groups – four that tend to favor more regulation and less consolidation.  The representative of the fifth organization, suggesting just the opposite – that in the new media world, little or no media ownership regulation is necessary.  While much of the discussion was process-oriented, there was discussion of specific issues that might come up in the review.  Both the process – which included extensive discussion of the need for detailed industry information for informed regulation to take place – and the substance could cause problems for broadcasters.  Substantive issues discussed included the need for more scrutiny of shared services agreements in the television world (as some saw these as a way of evading the FCC ownership regulations), and for ways to insure that there is more local programming as part of the process. One representative also mentioned the need to review noncommercial broadcasting as part of the ownership proceeding – which is usually restricted to a review of commercial operations.

Continue Reading Multiple Ownership Workshops Start to Identify Issues for Quadrennial Review – Shared Services Agreements and Local Origination To Be Focus of Public Interest Groups

This week, six Congressional supporters of the broadcast performance royalty wrote a letter calling upon the NAB to sit down with music industry representatives to reach a "negotiated resolution" of the "longstanding disagreement" in a session to last from November 17 through December 1.  The letter suggests that the negotiations will be supervised by Members of Congress and the staff of the Judiciary Committees of Congress, with a report to be made by the Committee staff at the end of the negotiation period which will be considered by Congress in further actions on this issue.  The parties are instructed to bring individuals who have decision-making power to reach an agreement.  Could this call for negotiations really result in a deal that would lead to a law requiring that radio broadcasters pay a fee for the use of sound recordings on their over-the-air stations?

First, we must ask whether there will even be any negotiations.  The NAB’s only statement issued thus far says that they are willing to "talk to Congress" about the matter, but that they hoped that the discussion would include some of the almost 300 members of Congress who oppose the royalty.  As we’ve written before, the NAB has over 250 Congressmen and over 20 Senators signed on to resolutions opposing the performance royalty.  With the initial letter being signed by 6 supporters of the royalty, and the Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate being filled with its supporters, why would the NAB be willing to jump into what could be seen as the lion’s den – engaging in a high stakes competition where the referees are on the record as favoring one side?  Note that the NAB statement says nothing about participating in "negotiations", which the former President of the NAB had said that he would never do.  We will have to see whether the change at the top of the NAB will bring a change in the attitude of the NAB.  New NAB President Gordon Smith, who has been in his job less than two weeks,  is said to be more of a consensus-builder than his predecessor, but he has had a very short time to come up to speed on the issue or to build any sort of consensus among those he now represents on where to go on this issue. 

Continue Reading Congressional Supporters of Performance Royalty Tell NAB to Negotiate With Music Industry – Will It Resolve Anything?

The Commission is worried about the future of the broadcast media, and they are trying to figure out what they can do.  The last two weeks have been full of news about actions being taken by the FCC which may or may not lead to a reshaping of broadcasting as we know it.  We wrote about the discussion of re-purposing some or all of the television spectrum for wireless broadband users.  We also told you about the workshops to be held this week as the first step in the Commission’s Quadrennial review of it multiple ownership rules – looking at whether to allow more media consolidation to help broadcasters compete in the new media landscape or, conversely, whether there should be a reexamination of the existing rules to make them more restrictive against big media.  Last week, the Commission announced two more actions – the appointment of a Senior Advisor to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to study "the future of media in a changing technological landscape", and a workshop on "Capitalization Strategies for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses."  What is the impact of all of these actions?

The appointment of the Senior Advisor, Steven Waldman, is perhaps the most interesting action.  Mr. Waldman, the founder of the website Belief.net (recently sold to News Corp), is charged with determining how the FCC can assure that the media will serve the public interest in the 21st century, and that "all Americans receive the information, educational content, and news they seek."  He is instructed to work with all Bureaus to determine how best to implement these ambitious goals.  It is interesting that, while one might be inclined to look at this with the assumption that his charge is to look at broadcasting, the public notice announcing his appointment and his charge does not once use the word "broadcast" or "broadcasting."  Instead, it talks almost exclusively about the new media and technology and the potential that they have for serving the public good.

Continue Reading FCC Senior Advisor to Chairman to Study Media Change and a Workshop on Media Financing for Small Business – Looking to Reinvent the Broadcast Industry?

A year ago, the FCC approved the use of a computer modeling technique, known as "moment method modeling", to allow certain AM stations to do Proofs of Performance of directional antenna patterns without the costly and time-consuming process of proofing the antenna performance through the use of actual field strength measurements.  Last week, the FCC issued a Public Notice clarifying the process for the use of this process.  The Commission notes that these guidelines are issued based on the staff’s current interpretation of the rules, that the notice is not intended to be precedential and to bind the Commission, and that these issues will be addressed by the staff in more detail as specific cases arise.    

The Public Notice addresses subject such as:

  • Types of Antenna Systems Eligible:  Only antennas with series-fed radiators can use this method – not those with folded unipoles or sectionalized antennas
  • Tower Location Tolerance: Noting that the a surveyor must certify that the antenna has been properly located and each tower is properly oriented, with a tolerance of 1.5 electrical degrees for each tower in the array
  • Antenna Monitor Calibration:  Reliance on the technique requires a certification that the antenna monitor has been properly calibrated in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications
  • Filing Fees:  Applicants must pay the license fee and directional antenna fee for both licenses to cover construction permits or to support a new license without monitoring points.
  • Specific information for accounting for base region effects when base sampling is used, agreement between calculated and measured tower base impedances, the requirement to measure impedance of sampling line with sampling device connected, and the determination of licensed parameters vs. operating tolerances is also provided

More specific information can be found in the Commission’s Public Notice. 

A jury in Sacramento returned a $16.57 million verdict against Entercom Broadcasting’s local subsidiary in the case involving the death of a contestant in a radio station-sponsored contest.  The contest – drinking water and waiting to see which contestant would win the Nintendo Wii by being the last to have to use the bathroom – led to the death of contestant Jennifer Strange by water intoxication.  The station had argued that water intoxication was not a readily known risk of the contest that could have reasonably been anticipated.  The plaintiff’s case, to refute this argument, included testimony of warnings from on-air station callers of the risks, and health complaints from contestants themselves, which were apparently ignored or minimized by the station employees who were involved in supervising the contest.  This Blog does not purport to address negligence and personal liability questions, which we will leave to others.  Instead, we’ll talk about the lesson to broadcasters and the FCC impact of this case.

First, the decision itself serves as a warning to broadcasters of the need to make employees aware of the ramifications of what goes on at a station.  In a Radio Ink Column today, Publisher Eric Rhoads suggests that broadcasters must be careful in what they do, but also submits that owners and managers cannot take the fun out of radio.  And while I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentiment, the fact that radio can be a fun business is all the more reason that owners and managers need to be careful about what goes on at a station.  While we hate to be the lawyers who ruin all the fun, management does need to make employees aware of the nature of the broadcast medium, and the fact that real people are impacted by whatever is done on the station – whether it be a "joke" on the air which some people find offensive, a dangerous contest, or simply putting off compliance with some FCC rule.  We are in a litigious time, and we have an FCC and a Congress with lots of pending matters that could determine the future of the industry.  While it may seem amazing, a single contest gone wrong or wardrobe malfunction can set the tone for the regulation of an entire industry.  So, while broadcast managers need to avoid being the heavies and playing it so safe that they take the fun out of broadcasting, they do need to impress on employees that they must be aware of the ramifications that their actions can have.  Broadcasting is still a powerful medium, and because of that fact, actions taken by broadcasters can have an impact that is magnified far beyond what might be the case in other media or other industries.  And because it is such a regulated industry, that impact can have huge consequences.

Continue Reading $16.57 Million Verdict in Hold Your Wee for Wii Case – What are the FCC Implications and What Should Broadcasters Learn?

As we expected, the FCC has set the date for the filing of the newly revised Ownership Reports on the revised FCC Form 323.  All commercial broadcast stations nationwide will need to file by December 15, according to the Public Notice released today.  According to the Public Notice, the Form will be available in the FCC’s CDBS electronic filing system by approximately November 16, and licensees can start to file as soon as the form is available.  The new report replaces the biennial ownership reports that had been filed every two years on the anniversary date of the filing of a station’s license renewal.  Now, there will be a single nationwide filing deadline of November 1 every other year.  The revised form is intended to give the Commission greater information about broadcast station owners, so that the Commission can better evaluate the status of diversity in broadcast ownership (see our post here for more information).

The FCC promises a Frequently Asked Questions website on the new form, to be available in the near future.  Watch for it, and be prepared to file by December 15. 

The FCC’s struggles to get a new FCC Ownership Report adopted, and to establish a uniform filing date for ownership reports from all commercial broadcasters, seems to be coming to an end.  The new Form 323 Ownership Report was approved by the Office of Management and Budget last week, with the OMB apparently finding the FCC’s recent revisions of the form (about which we wrote here) to be sufficient to answer objections that had been raised about its paperwork burden.   From comments made by the Chief of the FCC’s Media Bureau at a recent meeting of communications lawyers in Washington DC, the Commission’s staff is readying the form for its public debut and, once the details are worked out, commercial licensees will have about 30 days to complete the report and file it electronically at the FCC.  He suggested that the Commission was looking at a December filing deadline – so be on the alert for the Commission’s announcement of the new filing deadline to make sure that your report is timely filed by the date that the Commission establishes. 

On Friday, the Commission formally began a rule making proceeding regarding children and electronic media.  Aware of the vast opportunities, but also the potential risks inherent in today’s (and tomorrow’s) electronic media, the Commission is seeking to gather information about the extent to which children are using media today, the benefits and risks of the various technologies, and the ways in which society can improve the benefits while minimizing the risks.  Formally entitled "Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape", the proceeding is aimed at building a record to inform and guide the Commission’s future actions in this area. 

Clearly, these are big picture questions the FCC is dealing with at this stage, but with Friday’s Notice of Inquiry the Commission seeks to break the issues down into several areas of inquiry and solicit comment from interested parties.  For example, with respect to the potential benefits, the Commission has identified six principle benefits it sees from electronic media and seeks input about each, including:  (i) improved access to educational content; (ii) ability to acquire technological literacy necessary in a global economy; (iii) ability to develop new skills in the use of technology and the creation of content; and (iv) facilitating new forms of communication with family and peers.  With respect to risks, the Commission has noted a range of potential dangers ranging from the possible exposure to child predators to the impact of excessive or exploitative advertisements.  The Commission’s item also asks broad societal questions, such as whether there is a minimum level of media literacy that is required to participate effectively in modern society, and if so, how do we ensure that future generations gain the necessary exposure to electronic media.  At this stage of the process, the Commission is truly asking questions rather than proposing specific rules.  And in fact, there may be potential issues related to regulation in some of these areas, including First Amendment problems in connection with restricting access to indecent material in different types of electronic media. 

Just as an aside, the Notice quietly notes that the Commission previously released Notices of Proposed Rule Makings involving interactive television and embedded advertising on television, respectively.  While the FCC does not incorporate those open matters into this new proceeding, it does invite parties wishing to update the record on issues regarding embedded advertising in broadcast and cable television or interactive television to file ex parte submissions in the earlier dockets. 

The deadline for submitting Comments in this proceeding will be 60 days after publication of the Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register, with Reply Comments due within 90 days of publication.  Comments may be filed with the Commission on paper, or online using the FCC’s newly revamped Electronic Comment Filing System. 

An article from TV NewsCheck last week reported on an approach by an FCC representative to television operators, floating an idea that the FCC would "buy" TV spectrum from existing television station operators, and repurpose that spectrum for wireless users – presumably some sort of wireless broadband.  The funds to buy the spectrum would come from the auction of the frequencies.  Over-the-air TV viewers would perhaps be left with a limited over-the-air service.  Today, another article cites a study filed at the Commission that suggests that the auction of TV spectrum could bring in more than three times the value of what that spectrum is for broadcasting.  Could these developments grow into a ground swell that could signal the end of over-the-air television?  Nicholas Negroponte made the much quoted observation almost 15 years ago, before the Internet was the multi-media service that it is today – that communications devices that were wired will become unwired, and those that were wireless would become wired – the "Negroponte Switch" or the process of "unwiring."  But is this switch inevitable for television, and is it in the industry’s best interest?

The theory of unwiring looked at the growing demands of wireless data networks for more and more bandwidth. While voice and data services were, at one time, wired services (the plain old telephone, the fax, even the telegraph), more and more of that information is now being digitally packaged and delivered wirelessly.  At the same time, video programming was delivered through wireless over-the-air television (though no one ever referred to it as "wireless"), but each year is more and more delivered by wired means (by cable companies and what used to be telephone companies).  At this point, estimates are that only a bit more than 10% of television households get their television programming exclusively from over-the-air reception.  Looking at this transition, some have theorized that the progression would continue, and the broadcast services would end up being delivered to fixed locations by wire, while the data services would be delivered wirelessly.

Continue Reading Could Calls on the FCC for More Spectrum Lead to the End of Over The Air TV?