Last Friday we posted about the FCC’s announcement that it would open a filing window in December for noncommercial applicants interested in seeking authority for 67 existing vacant FM allotments.  Today, the FCC revised the timing of that window and postponed the opening until February 2010.  Accordingly, rather than accepting applications for these vacant noncommercial allocations in December, the window for filing will now be from February 19 through February 26, 2010.  In addition, the accompanying freeze on the filing of commercial and noncommercial minor modifications will now go into effect on February 6th and last through the closing of the window on February 26, 2010.  The FCC postponed the window in response to a request from a group of noncommercial entities and associations who said that two months would not be enough time for interested applicants to get approval from their boards and pull together an application.  The FCC agreed and pushed the date back.  So noncommercial entities interested in filing for these new stations have some additional time to prepare.  Further information is available in our earlier blog and in the FCC’s Public Notice released today. 

The FCC has released the agenda for its Workshop on the multiple ownership rules (about which we wrote here).  The workshop will span three mornings (November 2-4), and will include live testimony from a different panel each morning.  The first panel will include the academic perspective on ownership rules, the second the view from "public interest organizations", and the third from industry representatives, though the participants on that panel are, at this point, the most unsettled.  The Commission also requests written comments from the public, which can be filed through November 20.  As we wrote when this topic first came up last month, these workshops are the first step in the FCC’s consideration of the multiple ownership rules – a review that it is required to conduct once every 4 years – with 2010 being the year in which such review is required. 

The Commission sets out a series of questions that it would like to have addressed.  These questions include:

  • The FCC is required by statute to consider the rules governing local radio ownership, local television ownership, radio-TV cross-ownership, broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership and the dual network rule.  The Commission asks if it should consider other rules in the context of this proceeding.
  • In assessing ownership rules, should the Commission treat each rule in isolation, or should it look at all media together and attempt to craft more general rules addressing media consolidation as a whole in relevant markets?
  • Should rules that are adopted be "bright line" rules, that limit entities to specific numbers of stations, or should the Commission make a case by case determination of whether a combination is in the public interest, subject to some general principles?
  • Should the Commission address the traditional concepts of competition, diversity and localism to this proceeding, or come up with new ways of looking at these concepts, or different concepts to assess ownership goals?
  •  How should the FCC analyze competition, localism and diversity in today’s marketplace?  What are the relevant markets for analysis?  What metrics should be used?
  • What studies or analysis should the FCC use to inform its decisions on these topics.

 

Continue Reading FCC Releases Agenda for First Workshop on Revisions to its Multiple Ownership Rules – Localism and Economic Competition Issues Included

Last Thursday, the possibility of more Low Power FM (LPFM) stations came a step closer, as a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee passed a bill (the text of which is here) which would remove existing Congressional restrictions on the FCC adopting rules to ignore potential interference from new LPFM stations to full power FMs operating on third-adjacent channels.  With this committee approval coming at the same time as the Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval of a bill that would authorize a sound recording performance royalty on radio broadcasters’ over-the-air programming, this was not a good day legislatively for traditional broadcasters.  But it certainly could have been worse, as the LPFM bill does contain new provisions that would serve to extend some protection to existing broadcasters from interference from new LPFM stations.  Perhaps because of these new protections, the committee action was unanimous.

 The new protections built into the bill include the following:

  • Protection for third-adjacent channel full-power FM stations providing reading services for the blind
  • Providing protection for FM translator input signals from interference from new LPFM stations
  • For a year after a new LPFM goes on the air, it must broadcast notices that any listener who experiences interference to another FM station or FM translator from this new LPFM should report that interference to the LPFM station.  In the event that interference is reported:
    • The LPFM must notify the FCC and the third-adjacent channel station that is getting interference
    • The LPFM station must address the interference that arises
    • The FCC is charged with looking for ways to assist the LPFM in remediating interference, including allowing co-location of the LPFM at the same tower site as the FM station or FM translator to which interference is being caused
    • The FCC will investigate allegations of interference from an FM broadcaster or FM translator, no matter how far that interference is from the station, and even if the interference is to mobile reception

The bill does not say, however, what happens if the interference is not remediated.  Under current FCC rules for the FM translator service, a new translator must sign off if interference to existing stations cannot be resolved.  The bill does not specify that remedy for LPFM.  This issue remains to be resolved if the bill eventually passes Congress.

Continue Reading House Committee Passes Bill to Allow for More LPFM Stations – With Some Protections for Existing Broadcasters

On Friday the Commission released a further Order confirming certain recent changes to its ownership reporting requirements for commercial broadcast stations and soliciting additional input on the reporting of certain non-attributable interest holders.  Earlier this year, the Commission revised its rules regarding the reporting of ownership interests by commercial broadcasters.  The FCC also recast its FCC Form 323 Ownership Report to collect and organize the ownership data in a more useful manner.  (Our earlier summary of those changes can be found here.)  By its Order last week, the Commission denied a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the National Association of Broadcasters and reiterated that sole proprietors must file an FCC Form 323 biennially to report on their ownership interests. 

In addition, the Commission ratified the Media Bureau’s recent decision to push back the filing deadline for the FCC Form 323 from November 1st to no earlier than 30 days after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approves the modifications to the Form 323.  The revisions to the FCC Form 323 are still under consideration and it is not clear when the OMB will approve the collection of the information required by the new version of the Form.  (See our earlier posts here and here regarding the OMB’s review of the Form 323 under the Paperwork Reduction Act.)  The Commission also noted its agreement with the Media Bureau’s decision to require that each and every filing entity obtain an FCC Registration Number ("FRN") in order to complete the ownership reporting, and that each officer, director, and shareholder disclosed on the report also have an FRN.

With respect to the reporting of certain non-attributable interests, the Commission’s Order granted the NAB’s request for reconsideration and deleted the previously adopted requirement that entities with a single majority shareholder disclose all minority shareholders (despite the single majority shareholder exemption) and that "eligible entities" disclose otherwise non-attributable investors.  The NAB had argued, and the FCC agreed, that the logic for requiring the reporting of these two types of non-attributable interest holders was ill defined and that the intention to impose this requirement was not explicitly stated or developed in the record leading up to the rule change this past May.  Accordingly, the Commission has opened a further comment period to address the specific question of whether these two types of non-attributable interest holders should be divulged on commercial broadcasters’ biennial ownership reports.  Comments on this narrow topic will be due within 30 days of when this Order and Further NPRM are published in the Federal Register, with Reply Comments due within 45 days of publication.  A full copy of the Commission’s Order and NPRM, including details on how comments can be filed in this proceeding, is available here. 

The FCC today announced the opening of a filing window for noncommercial applicants interested in seeking authority for 67 existing vacant FM allotments.  Applications on FCC Form 340 will be accepted from December 11th through December 18th for these vacant FM allotments in the non-reserved band between Channels 221 and 300.  A full listing of the allotments that are available can be found here.  Although the vacant channels are in the non-reserved FM Band these particular allocations have been reserved exclusively for noncommercial use.  Thus, the window is restricted to noncommercial educational applicants only.

In the event that multiple applications are filed seeking the same allotment, then the channel will be awarded by applying the Commission’s comparative point system for noncommercial applicants.  Further details on filing an application can be found in today’s Public Notice, and complete step-by-step instructions are available on the Commission’s website here. 

In order to provide stability and predictability for applicants interested in filing for these vacant allotments, the FCC is imposing a freeze on the filing of minor change applications for both commercial and noncommercial FM radio stations.  The freeze will go into effect after 11:59 PM on November 25, 2009 and remain in effect through the close of the filing window.  Accordingly, any existing FM stations that intend to file a minor modification in November and December should plan ahead so they don’t get delayed by the freeze.  In addition, the FCC has also imposed a freeze, effective immediately, on any applications proposing to change the reference coordinates for these 67 allotments.  Similarly, petitions or counterproposals proposing a change in the class, channel, or community of license of any of the allotments will not be accepted until December 19th, after the filing window has closed. 

On November 10, Davis Wright Tremaine’s David Oxenford and Bobby Baker, the head of the FCC’s Office of Political Broadcasting, conducted a webinar on the FCC’s political broadcasting rules and policies.  The webinar originated from Lansing, Michigan, before an audience of Michigan Broadcasters, and was webcast to broadcasters in 13 other states.  Topics discussed included reasonable access, equal opportunities, lowest unit charges, and political sponsorship identification and public file rules. 

Seminar participants were provided with Davis Wright Tremaine’s Political Broadcasting Guide, available here.  The PowerPoint presentation used in the seminar is available here.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved the bill to impose a performance royalty (or the "performance tax" as the NAB had called it) on radio broadcasters for the public performance of sound recordings on their over-the-air stations.  As was the case in the House of Representatives when its Judiciary Committee approved their version of the bill, the Committee acknowledged that there was still work to do before a final bill would be ready for the full Congress.  Nevertheless, this is the first time that the Judiciary Committees in both Houses of Congress have approved the performance royalty, serving as a warning to broadcasters that this issue may well be moving to a showdown before the full House and Senate during the current session of Congress. 

There was only limited debate on the bill at the Committee hearing, yet several open issues were identified.  The Committee made clear that, even though it was approving the bill in the form introduced and amended by its managers, there were still changes that would be made in the future before any legislation was ready to be finalized.  Senator Feinstein of California discussed several of the issues.  First, the bill as amended by the Senate managers (Senators Leahy and Hatch), the bill provided relief for small broadcasters so that any performance royalty would not impose an undue burden on them.  The bill proposed the following royalty structure for small broadcasters:

(I) revenues of less than $50,000 – a royalty fee of $100 per year;

(II) revenues of at least $50,000 but less than $100,000 – a royalty fee of $500 per year;

(III) revenues of at least $100,000 but less than $500,000 – a royalty of $2,500 per year;

(IV) revenues of at least $500,000 but less than $1,250,000 – a royalty of $5,000 per year.

Senator Feinstein, who stated that she favored parity between all music services that pay a royalty, suggested that this same royalty structure should be applied to small webcasters who, under current settlement agreements, can pay almost 30 times the amount that a small broadcaster with the same revenues would pay under this bill – and those settlements were an improvement on the royalties that would have been paid under the decision of the Copyright Royalty Board.  Senator Feinstein stated that "the parties" were working on an agreement that would amend the bill to extend these rates to small webcasters.

Continue Reading Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Broadcast Performance Royalty – With Issues Yet to Resolve

As we’ve written before, the FCC every year aims to randomly audit 5% of all broadcast stations and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to assure their compliance with the Commission’s EEO rules.  Every few months, the FCC releases a list of the lucky regulatees who have to respond to the audit.  Today, the Commission issued another one of these audit lists – this time for MVPDs, principally cable systems.   No broadcasters are on the list – this time.  The cable systems and other MVPDs who are subject to the audit are listed on the attachment to the FCC’s Public Notice released today, here.

Broadcasters may not have been subject to this round of audits, but the audits will roll around again, and broadcasters will be subject the audit when the next one is conducted.  Thus, broadcasters should review their practices to ensure that they are in compliance with the requirements of the Commission’s rules.  Our Advisory setting out those requirements can be found here.

The FCC today announced that, effective October 27, noncommercial FM stations need no longer protect Channel 6 analog television channels.  The lower end of the FM band, which is reserved for noncommercial educational FM broadcasting, is immediately adjacent to TV Channel 6.  As most television stations abandoned Channel 6 in June when the digital television transition occurred, noncommercial stations had been protecting stations that were no longer there.  However, as we wrote here, the FCC wanted to deal with noncommercial licensees that were trying to jump the gun by filing applications contingent on the disappearance of the Channel 6 station even before the analog television stations had stopped operating.  To give all noncommercial FM stations an equal opportunity to take advantage of the clearing of Channel 6 in most television markets, the Commission set this uniform date for taking advantage of this change in television station operations.  Of course, noncommercial FM stations need to protect the handful of television stations that continue to operate digitally on Channel 6.  Today’s public notice notes that noncommercial FM applications trying to take advantage of the fact that Channel 6 has been vacated in their market by filing an application before the October 27 date will be dismissed unless they had specific unconditional permission of the Channel 6 station.

Note that while the FCC has made the process equal for all noncommercial FM stations, there are questions about whether an unfair advantage may have been given to some LPTV stations in the recent LPTV filing window, where channel 6 applications were not prohibited (see our post here).  Some noncommercial broadcasters were concerned that some of these LPTV applicants could take advantage of the vacating of Channel 6 in their market by filing an application for a new LPTV station that could preclude the filing of an FM application once the window announced in this public notice opened.  To some extent, this may not be a major issue, as the LPTV window for applications for major markets does not open until January.  But we will see if this concern actually resulted in any issues in more rural areas as the LPTV applications that have already been filed in these areas are processed in coming months.  But for NCE FM stations that were precluded from filing for upgrades by a Channel 6 TV station that disappeared after the digital transition, the wait for filing opportunities will soon be over.

The Copyright Royalty Board has ordered that most digital music services provide "census reporting" of all songs played by their service, along with other information including the number of listeners who heard each song each time it was played.  The decision, published in the Federal Register today, is a follow up to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking about which we wrote here, proposing this new permanent rule to replace the interim requirements that required that digital music services provide that information for two weeks each quarter.  The only exception to the new obligation was for "small broadcasters" – i.e. those broadcasters who are only obligated to pay the minimum $500 annual royalty. These small broadcasters will continue to report on the songs that they play for only two weeks each quarter.

The new general rule requiring census reporting applies to all digital music services that pay royalties to SoundExchange for the public performance of sound recordings. However, the obligations set out in this general rule do not replace different rules that may be contained in settlement agreements entered into between services and SoundExchange.  Settlements with recordkeeping exemptions include the broadcaster settlement (summarized here), which give stations the ability to exclude some of their tuning hours from the census reporting requirements that were included in that settlement, and the noncommercial settlement agreements summarized here.  The CRB decision also excludes those services where per performance reporting is not possible (such as satellite radio services where there is no easy way to count performances). 

Continue Reading Copyright Royalty Board Requires Census Reporting for All Webcasters Except for Small Broadcasters