Further information from the FCC regarding the DTV transition, this time dealing with call signs. The FCC has announced that following the DTV transition, full power television stations may either keep their current call signs (i.e. WXYZ or WXYZ-TV) or they may formally change to use "-DT" instead, as in "WXYZ-DT".

Stations that intend to keep their current call signs do not need to take any action.

Stations that wish to use "-DT" must change their call letters using the Commission’s on-line call sign reservation system. The change can be requested after the station has completed the permanent transition to digital service and there will be no charge for the call sign change.

For the handful of stations that are DTV-only stations, i.e. those that never had an analog channel, those stations have already been designated "-DT" and will retain that designation without any further action. If a DTV-only station wishes to switch from "-DT" to "-TV", it may file a call sign change request at no charge to make that change.

A copy of the FCC’s recent Public Notice on this issue is available here, and a link to the FCC’s call sign reservation database is here. 

 

The FCC yesterday issued a brief Order clarifying that stations that are flash-cutting to digital on their analog channel, or are otherwise commencing digital service on another channel as part of the transition, have the flexibility to do so at any time on June 12th without further authorization from the FCC.

[Please note, this information does not affect stations whose pre-transition and post-transition digital channels and facilities are the same. Such stations can complete the transition by simply terminating their analog service.]

Currently, DTV construction permits that specify only "Post-transition" operations state that they can only be implemented after 11:59 PM on June 12th, meaning you could not begin operations until the stroke of midnight on June 13th.  With the FCC’s recent clarification, however, stations are free to begin DTV operations whenever they are ready to go on June 12th.  This will hopefully allow stations to commence digital operations with less of a gap between the analog shut off and the digital commencement.  In addition, it will also allow stations the flexibility to commence operations on June 12th and work any bugs out during daylight hours.

Thus, for example, a station that is scheduled to shut off its analog facility at 10 AM on the 12th can begin DTV operations on that same channel at 10:01 AM instead of having to wait until after midnight.  The only caveat is for those stations whose early operation could affect another station (e.g., where Station A’s post-transition channel is the same as Station B’s channel for pre-transition).  In those cases, the FCC has instructed that the parties must coordinate with one another to ensure that the incumbent station terminates its service before the new co-channel station begins operation.  Again, no authorization is required from the FCC, but if the stations are not able to coordinate with one another, then they must wait until after 11:59:59 to commence post-transition operations.

In any case, once a station commences post-transition DTV operations consistent with their underlying construction permit, they will need to file a notification with the FCC, as well as a Form 302-DT covering license application to complete the process. 

 

This afternoon, the FCC issued an erratum revising the deadline for submitting Comments in the rule making proceeding regarding potential modifications to the ownership report filing requirements for noncommercial broadcasters.  Comments in this proceeding are now due by June 26th, not June 29th as previously indicated.  Please see our earlier post, here, discussing the questions that the FCC has raised in this rule making.  The deadline for Reply Comments is unchanged, and is still July 13th. 

UPDATE:  On June 2, the FCC issued an erratum revising the Comment date in this proceeding to June 26th.  We’ve updated our earlier post to reflect the change.

The FCC today issued a Public Notice announcing the filing deadline for comments regarding potential modifications to the ownership report filing requirements for noncommercial broadcasters (see our post, here, on the questions that the FCC is asking).  Comments are due on June 26, with replies on July 13.  As mentioned in our earlier post, the FCC also issued today an Order suspending the requirement that commercial broadcasters who have upcoming ownership report filing deadlines (including the deadline on Monday for on June 1 for radio stations in Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, and television stations in Michigan and Ohio).  This is a new policy, and thus supersedes the information in our post two weeks ago.  As all commercial broadcasters will now have to file reports on the same time – November 1 – the need for a second report was deemed unnecessary, especially given the upcoming revisions to the Form 323 to require more detailed information about some otherwise non-attributable owners, and for certain entities not now required to file.

As we have stated, the FCC is interested in obtaining more detailed ownership information in order to better assess whether additional steps to promote minority ownership are justified.  Watch for details of the new November filing requirement in the near future. 

In a truly eleventh-hour decision, the FCC released an Order late Friday evening suspending the filing of FCC Form 323 Ownership Reports that would otherwise be due on Monday, June 1st for certain broadcast stations.  In its recent Report and Order adopted in the proceeding devoted to Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, the Commission revised its rules to implement a single November 1st filing deadline for all commercial broadcast stations to submit an ownership report.  The Order, however, neglected to address the fact that numerous broadcast stations faced filing deadlines under the current rules that would require an ownership report to be filed by June 1, August 1, or October 1 (depending on a station’s license renewal anniversary). 

It is unclear why this issue was not addressed as part of the earlier Report and Order, which was adopted nearly two months ago on April 8th, or why today’s Order was not released earlier in order to prevent stations from filing in advance of the June 1st deadline, but the clarification will be helpful for those stations that have not yet filed, or for those that would otherwise face an August 1st or October 1st ownership report deadline.  For those stations that have already filed their Ownership Reports consistent with the June 1st deadline, the Order is silent as to whether the FCC will refund the filing fees paid by those licensees, or alternatively, if those licensees will be required to pay another fee come November 1st. 

This past week, I attended the BIAfn Winning Media Strategies Conference in Washington, DC.  During the course of the conference, there was much talk about how broadcasters and publishers need to provide unique service to their communities in order to survive in the competitive media marketplace.  The point was made over and over again that, in each market there are unique attributes and personalities that a station should be covering in its programming, and should be exploiting even more broadly through their digital assets, to tie it to its community.  Only by doing so will the station be able to survive in the new media environment – and by doing so, the station may be able to thrive.  In fact, I was stuck by a statement by USC’s Adam Clayton Powell III that domination of the local online and digital media marketplace was "the broadcasters to lose."  In other words, the broadcaster has such unque promotional abilities with its current audience that it can establish its brand in the online and in the mobile world far easier than other media players.  But there were also the repeated warning that there is more and more competition for this local digital market from new entrants and other media entities and that, if the broadcasters did not take advantage of their current advantage, the local service would come from someone else.  What most stuck me was that there was no question that the superservice to local needs would be coming from someone – broadcaster or not – as a result of marketplace developments, not because of any government mandate.  The broadcaster has to adapt to and compete in this new media marketplace or become culturally and economically irrelevant.  The broadcaster needs to serve the local market to meet these challenges, not because some Washington agency has ordered him to do so.  And the broadcaster needs to serve his community in a way that the public will find compelling, not in a way that the government thinks is best.

At BIAfn, the presentation that made the greatest impact was probably that of Greenspun Media from Las Vegas, which has reinvented a secondary newspaper and a Low Power TV station as an on-line powerhouse, uncovering the aspects of the community that would draw the largest audience and covering that information in great detail.  The Las Vegas Sun site not only covers hard news, but also the gaming industry, University of Las Vegas sports and even state government issues in a way that its audience seems to find interesting.  Even a history of Las Vegas, in great detail, is included.  And video plays a big part of the site, with the company in development of a hip news and events program, 702.tv, that will soon be a daily program on the television station and online (featuring local "celebrities" doing the weather, including strippers and Neil Diamond sound-alikes).  While some attendees at the conference thought that Las Vegas presented unique opportunities that might not be available in all communities, many were immediately speculating on the opportunities in their own communities to find unique personalities and events that could be developed on-air and on-line in ways to maximize their connection with their audience. 

Continue Reading Localism Without Government Regulation

A decision released by the FCC’s Media Bureau staff this week makes clear that the permittee of a noncommercial station, who was awarded the permit based on a 307(b) preference, cannot change transmitter sites so as to abandon service to the area that it promised to cover in order to get the preference – even if it proposes to cover an equivalent amount of underserved area from its new transmitter site.  In addition, the decision held that the change in transmitter site was not justified even though the underserved area that had existed at the time the construction permit was granted no longer existed.  Other stations had changed their facilities since the date of the construction permit’s grant, and now provided coverage to the area that had been underserved at the time of the grant. The Commission said that the coverage promises made by an applicant, and on which the permit was conditioned, were a snapshot in time that could not be changed even after the grant.  The decision should serve as a reminder to all the noncommercial applicants with applications that are now pending or to be filed in the next noncommercial window (whenever that may be) that they should not propose a technical facility in order to win a construction permit on 307(b) grounds if they can’t really construct the station at the site they propose, as they may well be stuck with it – and forfeit the permit if they can’t build the station in the way that they promised.

One wonders if a decision like this one will be appealed.  While there is no question that an applicant who makes promises that lead to the award of a permit should be held to those promises (to do otherwise would undermine the system), is it really in the public interest to hold the applicant to these promises in such a way so as to ignore reality?  If the underserved area that the applicant had promised to serve is no longer underserved, and some new underserved area that would have resulted in the applicant receiving the same preference is to be served by the modified proposal, isn’t the public better off getting service to these truly underserved areas?  We will have to watch this case to see what develops.

In a case released this week, the FCC decided to forgive a fine that had been imposed on a radio station for not timely filing its license renewal (and for operating after the license expired without authority).  The fine was eliminated because the station’s operator had declared bankruptcy, and the persons who were in charge of the station at the time of the violation were no longer involved in its operation.   Instead, the bankruptcy court had approved a receiver who had sold the station to an unrelated third party.  The Commission found that continuing to require that the bankrupt estate pay the fine would only deprive legitimate, innocent creditors of money to pay the company’s debts.  Thus the FCC rescinded the fine.  Note that, in previous cases, the FCC had said that it could hold the seller of a station liable for fines even after the sale had been completed (see our post, here).  Had it not been for the bankruptcy and this decision, the old licensee could have been fined even though the station had been sold.

This decision and the cases that it cites are important in the current economic climate, where there are already many broadcast stations in bankruptcy, and quite possibly more will be following that route.  One of the principal delays that often occurs in the sale of a broadcast station is a delay caused by a pending complaint against a station that could potentially result in a fine or other penalty against the station’s licensee.  In such cases, where the station seller is leaving the broadcast industry, the FCC often requires the seller to put the amount of the potential fine for any rule violation into an escrow account, and sign an agreement allowing the FCC to recover the portion of the escrow necessary to satisfy any fine that may be imposed in the future.  These "tolling agreements" (called that because they toll the statute of limitations that may apply to a fine) may delay a sale, and many sellers are reluctant to escrow funds, particularly where they may not feel that the pending complaint has merit.  In a bankruptcy case, were the FCC to insist on one of these tolling agreements and an escrow account, the bankrupt estate may well not be able to come up with the funds for such an account (and the bankruptcy court might not approve the expenditure of such funds if there are other creditors with a higher priority to the funds than the FCC, as an unsecured creditor with a claim that has not even been adjudicated).  By determining that a bankruptcy wipes out a fine, if the station is sold to an innocent third party, the FCC avoids these issues.  Thus, the decision in this case is a clear indication that the FCC is not going to allow a pending fine to work as an impediment to the orderly disposition of a bankrupt radio station.

The FCC today issued a Notice of Inquiry into the use of the Portable People Meter technology of radio audience measurement now being rolled out by Arbitron in radio markets throughout the country.  Several months ago, various groups petitioned the FCC for an inquiry into the PPM, contending that it has certain methodological flaws that undercounted particular groups, including minority groups, and thus could have an impact on the financial viability of the stations listened to by such groups (see our summary  of the petitions and the issues raised by these petitions).  The Notice of Inquiry asks about those perceived flaws, about the potential impact of any flaws on the use of Arbitron market definitions for purposes of the FCC radio multiple ownership rules, and on the more general question of whether the FCC even has the jurisdiction to regulate the use of the PPM.

Specific questions on which the FCC seeks comments include:

  • Does the use of this technology really undercount minority populations?
  • If so, what has been the impact on the economics of minority-formatted stations in markets where the system is in use?
  • Are there specific information gathering techniques that should be improved in the PPM system?
  • What has been the effect on the PPM system of settlements between Arbitron and the Attorneys General of several states – where Arbitron promised to change its sampling process?
  • What is the impact of Media Ratings Council accreditation for the PPM in certain markets, and its lack of accreditation in others?
  • Do the questions about PPM reliability have any impact on the use of Arbitron to define radio markets for FCC multiple ownership purposes?
  • What is the FCC’s jurisdiction to review Arbitron’s practices in connection with the PPM? 

Details of these questions can be found in the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry at pages 12-17.

Continue Reading FCC Begins Formal Inquiry Into Arbitron PPM Audience Measurement

The full text of the FCC’s revisions to its ownership report filing process was released last week.  The new rules will require that all commercial stations (including LPTV stations) file an updated Form 323 on November 1 every other year – starting in 2009.  The Order does not add much to the summary that we provided when the decision was first announced, though it does make clear that the electronic form will be revised to no longer allow for PDF attachments, instead requiring that all information be provided on the electronic form itself, so that it can be more easily searched.  With complex ownership structures, which are sometimes not easily explained in the confines of an FCC form, this may create some difficulties.  The Order did not seem to freeze the obligations for the filing of Form 323 Ownership Reports on the old version of the form on the current schedule while the new form is being created and approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, so stations in states with June 1 deadlines for their biennial reports should continue their preparation (see our Advisory on the the reports that are due on June 1 for radio stations in Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, and television stations in Michigan and Ohio).

The Order also asked for further comment on the Ownership Report requirements for noncommercial licensees, including LPFM stations.  The Commission asks not only for comments on whether noncommercial operators should be required to file their reports on the same two year cycle as commercial broadcasters, but also for comments on what information should be required from these operators.  As noted by the FCC, the question of who controls a noncommercial station is often not an easy one – as there are varying degrees of control and oversight of station operations at many of the institutions that hold noncommercial licenses.  As noted by the FCC, there has been a Notice of Inquiry into noncommercial broadcast station ownership pending since 1989, trying to set out when there is a transfer of control of such entities that needs prior FCC approval.  Noncommercial stations have been operating under the interim policy set forth in that Notice for almost 20 years.  While the Commission does not seemingly ask for any change in the interim policy at this point, by gathering information about what ownership information should be reported on the new ownership report for a noncommercial entity, a resolution of that long-pending proceeding could potentially be in the works.

Continue Reading Rules On New Ownership Reports Released – Including Proposals for Information from Noncommercial Broadcasters