FCC Form 388 reports on the efforts of television stations to educate their viewers about the digital television transition.  We wrote about the details of that new form, filed for the first time in April.  When the form was last filed, as it had been adopted only days before, the Commission did not have time to update its CDBS system to allow for the electronic filing of that form in the system where all other FCC forms are submitted.  Instead, the FCC required that first form be filed in ECFS, the system usually used for filing rulemaking comments in docketed proceedings.  However, the Commission has just announced that the form is now available in CDBS so, when the form is next submitted on or before the July 10 deadline, reporting on the last three month’s DTV educational activities, broadcasters can use the standard filing system.  The ECFS filing system caused great consternation among broadcasters and the FCC, as it did not automatically link up the reports with the stations that submitted them.  Thus, many stations that timely filed the form received admonitions from the FCC, alleging that the forms had not properly been submitted.  Hopefully, as the standard filing system can now be used, those sorts of issues will be avoided.  So remember to file the form by the deadline, and to use the CDBS system this time around.

The FCC today issued an order extending the comment deadline in its Broadcast Diversity proceeding, extending the comment date a full month until July 30, with Reply Comments now due on August 29.  This important proceeding, about which we wrote here, will address many issues, including proposals to, among other things, repurpose television Channel 6 (and possibly Channel 5) for FM use after the completion of the television digital transition, to allow FM licensees who multicast to sell one of their multicast channels independently of the main channel, to allow certain AM stations with expanded band channels to avoid turning in one of their channels at the end of the 5 year transition period if the licensee is a designated entity (or sells one of its channels to a designated entity), and to provide Class A television stations with must-carry status.  The rulemaking proceeding will also look at whether the current definition of a designated entity (focusing on the fact that it is a small business as opposed to any review of the race or gender of its owners) is the one that the FCC should continue to use.  Thus, this is an important proceeding in which many broadcasters should be interested, and now you have more time to prepare comments on the issues that are raised.

The FCC has just issued orders fining two stations, one for $8000 and one for $5000, for not having EAS receivers that were in compliance with FCC rules.  The stations, which are located in the same building, shared one EAS receiver.  According to FCC rules, co-located stations can share EAS receivers when they are also co-owned.  Here, however, the stations were not under common ownership so, under the rules, they could not share the same receiver.  In addition, in connection with the station that received the higher fine, the FCC noted that the receiver was not properly calibrated, having incorrect date and time information – being set permanently on January 10, 1995.  As the system was set up to automatically retransmit the required monthly EAS tests, and those tests would not be properly relayed if they were encoded with a date that the system did not think had yet occurred, the station had not been transmitting the required monthly tests, nor noting the failure to do so in their station log.

In attending several engineering seminars at broadcast conventions in the last few months, I’ve noted that broadcast compliance inspectors consistently identify non-working EAS receivers as the number one compliance problem at broadcast stations.  And one of the biggest problems is with receivers that either have never had the correct date set, or which have a clock which is malfunctioning so that the correct date and time is not properly updated.  Inspectors have also noted that many times they find EAS receivers not having the proper audio inputs so that they can receive the station that they are supposed to be monitoring, or proper outputs so that they can relay the tests that they do receive.  And, as a station’s chief operator is supposed to be weekly checking the station’s log, which should include a record of all EAS tests sent and received, these discrepancies should be noted within a few days – yet they often go unnoticed for long periods of time – meaning that the station can also be fined for not having properly maintained their station log.  As these fines can add up, stations should insure that their equipment is working and monitored to avoid making some involuntary contributions to the US Treasury.

I’m writing this entry as I return from the annual convention of the Iowa Broadcasters Association, held this year in Des Moines, Iowa. Anyone who has read, watched or listened to the national news this week knows of the terrible tornadoes that devastated a Boy Scout camp in that state, and the floods ravaging many of its cities and threatening others. I arrived in Iowa on Wednesday having just completed the filing of reply comments in the FCC’s localism proceeding, and after reviewing the many comments filed in that proceeding. After talking with, watching and listening to the Iowa Broadcasters, I was struck by the contrast between the picture of the broadcast industry contained in the Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking and that which I saw and heard reflected in the words and actions of the broadcasters. I could only think of how the broadcasters of Iowa and the remainder of the country have dealt admirably in their programming with the disasters that nature has sent their way, and with the other issues facing this country every day, and have been able to do this all without any compulsion by the government. Why, when we have probably the most responsive broadcast system on earth, do we need the government to step in and tell broadcasters how to serve their communities?

At dinner on Wednesday, I watched one station general manager repeatedly getting up from his meal to take calls from his station about their coverage of a tornado that had come within a quarter mile of his studio, and how he had to insist that his employees take shelter from the storm rather than continuing to broadcast news reports from their exposed location as the tornado bore down on them. Another told me of how he and another employee had spent the previous day piling sandbags around the station to keep the water from flooding the studio, all the time reporting between every song the station played updates on the weather and travel conditions in their community. Other stations had continued to operate after their tower sites flooded by gerry-rigging antennas on dry land to permit their continued operation. In one of the more minor inconveniences, one station talked about operating for a few days after their city’s waterworks had been inundated by floods , meaning that their studio (and the rest of town) had no running water for drinking or even for flushing the toilets.  Yet, between these inconveniences, large and small, the broadcasters continued their service, without being told how by the government.

Continue Reading Iowa Broadcasters – Floods, Tornadoes and Localism

Watch what your employees are up to. That’s the message of a recent decision by the FCC, fining a broadcaster $4000 for airing a telephone call that was taped and broadcast without the consent of the caller. In the case released earlier this week, the licensee asked for forgiveness based on the fact that the employee had already left the employment of the station, and because the licensee did not know of the conduct, could not even confirm that it occurred, and did not condone that conduct if it had in fact taken place. Essentially, the FCC found that the evidence provided by the caller who complained to the FCC was so convincing that the Commission could conclude that the call had in fact been aired without the caller’s consent even though the licensee could not confirm it, and the licensee was responsible for the actions of its employees. This sends the clear message to licensees that they must carefully supervise their employees, and think twice about putting that “wild and crazy” disc jockey on the air if the licensee thinks that he won’t be restrained by the Commission’s rules.

This case is another example of the FCC’s rules against airing phone calls without the consent of the caller (or taping those calls for airing without consent), except in the limited circumstances where a caller should know from the context of the program that, by calling the station, he will be put on the air. For instance, if the caller calls on a call-in line to an on-air show where the stations employees are regularly putting callers on the air, then the station should not have problems under the rules. But broadcasters are safest if they are cautious with such phone calls – warning callers with a taped or live message that there call may be taped or put on the air before the taping or airing occurs

Continue Reading Fine for Airing Telephone Call Without Permission – Unauthorized Employee No Excuse

The appeals of last year’s Copyright Royalty Board decision on the royalties paid for the use of sound recordings by Internet radio stations continue on, and one recent filing raises interesting questions of whether or not the CRB was properly appointed.  Last week, the Department of Justice, which represents the CRB in defending its decision in the Court of Appeals, filed its brief in opposition to the briefs of the webcasters, which we summarized here.  The DOJ brief essentially argued that the webcasters’ briefs were insufficient to satisfy the requirement for a successful appeal – that the CRB decision was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise contrary to law.  Essentially, a Court need not revisit the decision and substitute its judgment as to whether the it believes that the decision was correct, but instead, to overturn a decision, the Court must find that the CRB (the expert agency) either violated the law or could not, on the fact, have logically come up with the decision that it did.  Thus, the DOJ brief made arguments that there was enough factual evidence for the CRB to decide in the way that it did, and made arguments that the webcasters had not offered contrary arguments or evidence on certain points during the CRB proceeding and were therefore barred from raising those arguments now.  Just before the DOJ brief was filed, another pleading raised the fundamental question of whether the Copyright Royalty Board was properly appointed and, if not, whether it has the constitutional authority to decide the cases that it has been considering.

This new argument about the CRB’s authority comes in a request filed with the Court of Appeals by Royalty Logic, a party to the CRB proceeding.  Royalty Logic is not a webcaster, but instead is seeking to be an alternative collection agency to SoundExchange.  Its pleading seeks supplemental briefing on the question of whether the Copyright Royalty Judges are “inferior officers” of the Federal government who, under the Constitution, can only be appointed by the President, by the Courts or by the head of a Department of the government. In a recent Supreme Court case, the Court found that certain tax court judges, who were appointed by a chief judge and not by a cabinet-level officer (the head of a “department”) violated this Appointments Clause of the Constitution. There has been much press coverage in the past few weeks as to whether this decision also applies to patent judges, and whether it could invalidate hundreds of patents approved by these judges (see the NY Times article on this issue, and listen to an NPR piece about the controversy). Royalty Logic contends that the same logic should apply to the appointment of the Copyright Royalty Judges who make up the CRB.  The Copyright Royalty Judges are appointed by the Librarian of Congress.  One question would be whether the Librarian is the equivalent to the head of a department though, technically, the Library of Congress is not even in the Executive Branch of government, but instead part of Congress.  In any event, Royalty Logic notes that the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, a predecessor agency done away with during the Clinton administration as part of their "Reinventing Government" program (one of the few agencies that was "reinvented"), had members appointed by the President.

Continue Reading Does the Copyright Royalty Board Exist – Internet Radio Appeal Proceeds and New Issues Arise

At a meeting held this week, the Radio Advertising Bureau (RAB) adopted Guidelines promoting the use of "posting" or audience delivery guarantees for the radio industry.  While these guidelines are voluntary, and no doubt some broadcasters will not adopt the practice, those who do should be aware of the political broadcasting implications.  For years, at political broadcasting seminars that I have conducted around the country, the question of how posting affects the political broadcasting obligations of television broadcasters has been much discussed. In its 1991 policy statement on Political Broadcasting, which essentially established the rules that broadcasters have followed in the years since, the Commission’s entire discussion of how audience underdelivery make good spots affected a station’s political broadcasting obligations was essentially addressed in two sentences – essentially saying that such guarantees must be made available to candidates in the same manner as commercial advertisers.  Thus, stations must offer audience delivery guarantees to political advertisers if they offer such guarantees to commercial advertisers.  The 1992 reconsideration added a few more sentences, making clear that any make-good spots provided to meet any delivery guaranty would not need to be considered in determining the lowest unit charge of the time periods in which the make good runs.  What the Commission leaves to the broadcaster, however, is to fashion a way to compensate the candidate for underdelivery when the underdelivery may not be discovered for months (when the next ratings book is released), which will usually be after the election for which the candidate purchased the spots. 

In the television industry, where posting has been common for years, stations deal with the political implications in many different ways.  First, not all purchased spots will have delivery guarantees. Under Commission rules, spots that have different rights can be considered to be spots of a different class, and each class of spots will have its own lowest unit rate.  Thus, spots with audience delivery guarantees will likely have a higher price than those that do not have the guarantees.  As the make good spots for any underdelivery of audience will be of little value if they are not available until after an election, the candidates will usually opt for the lower priced spots without the guarantees.  Alternatively, stations can offer candidates a discount off of their lowest unit rates for spots with guarantees in exchange for the candidates agreeing to waive any underdelivery make-good spots.  In a few cases, candidates agree to take any make-good spots to which they may be entitled, and use them after the election to thank their supporters or to convey policy positions to their constituents.

Continue Reading RAB Adopts Guidelines for “Posting” – Remember to Consider the Political Broadcasting Implications

The Commission today published notice in the Federal Register revising the dates for submitting comments in its rule making "In the Matter of Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services."  If you will recall, this is the rule making proceeding that seeks comment on a number of new proposals, including whether to revise the definition of "Designated Entities", possibly expanding the FM band to include TV channels 5 and 6, possibly adopting rules to allow AM expanded band stations to retain those stations or transfer them to Designated Entities, and whether Class A LPTV stations should be afforded must-carry rights on cable systems. 

Although the FCC had initially pegged the comment date at July 15th when it first published notice a couple of weeks ago, apparently that date was a miscalculation.  Thus, the dates for commenting have now been revised, and Comments in the proceeding are now due on or before June 30, 2008, and Reply Comments are due on or before July 14, 2008.  This means that interested parties have a couple of weeks less than initially thought to prepare and file comments in this proceeding, so start drafting now.  See our earlier summary of this proceeding for more information.  A copy of today’s Federal Register notice can be found here. 

With the Digital Television conversion date only eight and a half months away, the end game is beginning.  The FCC has announced that Wilmington, North Carolina will be a test market for the digital conversion, going all-digital on September 8 (or almost all digital, as the local NPR affiliate is not planning to turn off its analog signal, and one LPTV station will continue to operate in analog).  This will provide the FCC with an opportunity to determine what will really happen when the digital transition occurs in February of next year.  What will the FCC learn from this early test?  In the statement of Commissioner Copps at a recent town hall meeting held in Wilmington to address the digital conversion, some of the issues to be watched were set out.

Essentially, the Commissioner identified four different broad categories of issues that would be considered.  They are:

  • Technical issues – will the DTV signals provide adequate service to their communities?  Will the converter boxes be able to receive the signals with "rabbit ear" antennas, or will there be reception problems
  • Will consumers have received the word about the transition, or are there certain groups that will be particularly hard-hit by the transition, missing out on vital information about that transition?
  • How will various partnerships work?  The Commissioner identifies partnerships between various industry, government and community groups to distribute news about the transition, but there are also partnerships between stations and multi-channel video providers (cable and direct broadcast satellite) that need to be worked out
  • The unknown – what other issues that are not anticipated will arise?

As set forth below, many of these issues have been receiving extensive press coverage in recent weeks.

Continue Reading What Will the FCC Learn from Wilmington – The Beginning of the End of the TV Digital Transition

With the recent spate of severe weather throughout the country, a reminder about the FCC’s rules on the presentation of specific emergency information is in order.  The FCC rules requires that any specific emergency information – not a generalized warning, but a specific warning directed at a specific location – must be presented visually as well as in oral form. So if you say that there is a tornado headed to a particular community, and people in the northern portions of the city should head to their basements or an interior room, that information should be presented visually as well as through the statements of the weathercaster who is stating those words.  The nature of the emergency and any information about how to cope with it that is aurally presented must also be presented in some visual manner.  Some time ago, the FCC issued a public notice on this subject.  A correction to that notice, making clear that the emergency information need not be closed-captioned in an emergency, as long as the information is presented in a visual format, is accessible through a previous post on our blog, here.

The Commission made clear that television stations, in emergency situations, need not close caption this information about an immediate and specific emergency, but can present it open captioned, on a chalk board or white board, or in any other way that it is visually apparent to those with hearing difficulties.  The Commission recognized that closed captioning might not be available if an emergency arose outside of the normal news hours, and felt that it was more important that the information be carried than that it be closed captioned.  As the FCC has fined stations for not providing in a visual form this specific information about where there is an emergency and what steps to take to prepare for the emergency, stations should be sure that they are observing these requirements.