Update 11/23/2009 – the Commission has just extended the filing deadline for the Form 323 until January 11, 2010.  See our post here for more details. 

December 15 is that date on which the new FCC Form 323 Ownership Report is to be filed at the FCC – yet the revised form is not yet available in the FCC’s CDBS electronic filing database.  What is a broadcaster to do?  The form will require significantly more work to complete than was necessary on prior versions – and it requires more information provided in a different manner than on the old form.  The information on the old form cannot simply be imported into the new form – everything needs to be re-entered.  And information that used to be provided by exhibit in older versions of the form has to be manually entered into separate searchable fields on the new form.  For broadcasters with many principals who have many broadcast interests, the form will take significant time to complete.  All commercial licensees, including LPTV licensees who have never before had to file, must submit the report.  Each attributable owner of each licensee (see our Advisory for a very basic explanation of attributable interests) will also need to have his or her own FCC registration number ("FRN") in order to complete the form – all to be done by December 15.  But will that date potentially change?

While the FCC has issued a series of Questions and Answers about the form (and we have published our own Advisory to prepare for the filing of the form, here), licensees can’t start filling out the form yet as the revised for is not yet available electronically.  So the difficulties that will no doubt be discovered as hundreds of broadcasters try to complete the form for the first time have yet to even be fully identified.  Even if the form does become available today, there still will be a significant potential for a very messy filing window.  Confusion will likely occur as every commercial broadcaster must file the form, some for the first time, and many will no doubt have questions about the process.  From the calls that we are getting already, the anxiety and confusion among broadcasters is great.  The prospects of a filing "trainwreck" has been the subject of much talk in Washington among lawyers like us who represent broadcasters.  With much of next week taken up with the Thanksgiving holiday, there simply will not be time for every question to be answered, and for every broadcaster to be ready to file by the December 15 deadline.  This week, one law firm went so far as to formally request that the Commission postpone the filing date.  We would not be surprised if this petition is successful, or if the Commission on its own motion decides to extend the deadline.  But the filing deadline has not yet been delayed, so broadcasters should still plan on meeting the current deadline (and, even if extended, any delay will not be indefinite, so broadcasters still need to be getting ready).  What can a broadcaster do now?

Continue Reading It’s November 20, and Still No New Form 323 Ownership Report – What’s a Broadcaster to Do?

At more and more broadcast conventions, station owners have been asking questions about their legal liability for the use of social media.  What is their liability for the use of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or other services?  Could owners have liability if their station maintains its own page on which friends and followers may post statements which are defamatory or which could otherwise give rise to a lawsuit?  Can an employee’s actions on his or her own pages be attributed to the station?  Should stations restrict the use of social media by their employees on company time, or can that itself give rise to liability?  These are the same questions being asked by employers in other industries, and Davis Wright Tremaine is conducting two free on-line seminars on December 9 and December 15 to answer these questions.

While these seminars are not directed exclusively to broadcasters, they will address topics that broadcasters will find helpful in answering their questions on the use of social media.  Specific topics to be discussed include:

  • Social media mechanics: How does social media work and what are employees doing on these sites?
  • Employer liabilities: What new types of legal risks are created by employees using social media? How can employers protect themselves?
  • Expectations of privacy: Do employers who blog or use social media in the workplace still enjoy a right to privacy? What can employers lawfully do to monitor or control online activities?
  • Social media policies: What are the options and what should it contain? Is it necessary for your company to have a written policy?
  • Managing defamation: If you or your company is defamed online, what can you do? What should you do?

More information on these free on-line seminars is available here.  To register for these free seminars, go the the registration site here.

 

DWT attorneys David Oxenford and Ronnie London both spoke at the Future of Television – East Conference held in New York City on November 18-19, 2009. Dave delivered introductory remarks to the Conference, and participated with Shelly Palmer, Host of MediaBytes, in a discussion "What’s the Industry Buzz.". Dave discussed the role of Washington in the Future of Television, outlining the issues facing "television" in its broadest sense – including broadband deployment, net neutrality, the battle over the spectrum, privacy, piracy and content protection, and content regulation.  The slides from his presentation are available here.

Ronnie was a panelist on a panel called The Future of Online Video, participating in a discussion with several CEOs of online video companies.  Ronnie discussed issues including FTC disclosure obligations, sponsorship identification requirements, and privacy concerns for companies offering on-line video.

Radio broadcasters all over the country have been receiving letters about music royalties – from ASCAP, BMI and the Radio Music Licensing Committee (RMLC).  The ASCAP and BMI letters are asking for the broadcaster to sign a letter committing themselves to some royalty obligation for 2010.  They pose three options to the broadcaster – sign up to pay royalties for 2010, join the RMLC negotiating group, or notify ASCAP and BMI that they will be negotiating their own royalties.  The RMLC letter suggests that the broadcaster join in their negotiating group to help to establish a new royalty structure with these entities.  What does it all mean, and what should a broadcaster do? 

These letters are all triggered because the rates for royalties that commercial radio broadcasters pay to ASCAP and BMI for the musical compositions that they play on the air expire at the end of 2009. (Noncommercial broadcasters have a special rate set under the review of the Copyright Royalty Board, and thus are not subject to these deals)  RMLC represents most radio broadcasters in their dealings with the performing rights organizations (or "PROs" as ASCAP and BMI, and SESAC, are called). We wrote about the many issues that have held up an extension of the current agreements between radio broadcasters and ASCAP and BMI here. If there is no new deal covering these royalties in place by the end of the year, broadcasters who continue to play these compositions (which will be virtually all commercial radio operators) will need to determine how to pay royalties when the current royalty agreements expire.  The current agreements do not have any automatic extensions in them, as the antitrust consent decrees that bind these companies call for royalty deals of no more than 5 years in duration. Thus, as the old agreements are about to expire, and no new agreements are in place, the flurry of letters has followed to put broadcasters on notice of the current situation.  Of course, none of these letters is entirely clear in spelling out all the issues involved.  So we’ll try to explain some of those issues below. 

Continue Reading Letters From ASCAP, BMI and RMLC – What’s a Broadcaster to Do?

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?