A recent decision of the FCC emphasizes that tower owners must remember to change the tower registration for any communications towers after a change in ownership, or risk a fine.  In the recent decision, the FCC canceled a $3000 fine that was imposed after an FCC inspection when it appeared a change in the ownership had not been reported – but the cancellation was not because the fine was not proper, but because the tower was in fact owned by the party who the FCC records said owned it.  All towers which must be registered with the FCC so that the FCC can notify the appropriate owner of any issues that may arise – and owners are subject to fines if it is discovered that the tower owner is not properly reported in FCC records.  In sales of broadcast stations and other communications licenses, towers are often included assets.  However, when the focus of the transaction is the sale of a radio or TV station, for which prior FCC approval is necessary, the transfer of the tower in the FCC records may well be overlooked.  No prior FCC approval for the sale of the tower is needed, and the tower is not included in the FCC authorizations reported on the applications for the sale of the broadcast licenses.  Thus, the parties must remember that the tower registration must be amended to report the new owner after the closing of the sale of the station.  Don’t forget – or a fine may result if the FCC discovers that the ownership change was not reported.

 

In the hotly contested Democratic Presidential nominating contest, the delegates from Michigan and Florida, which already held Presidential primaries which were labeled as meaningless by the Democratic Party, may become crucial in deciding a winner in the race.  Thus, there have been discussions, particularly in Michigan, of holding another Presidential primary or caucus to award the delegates, probably in early June.  Broadcasters have asked whether they would need to provide lowest unit rates yet again if such a primary is held, given that they have already had one lowest unit rate window for the Presidential primaries already this year.  It seems to me that the answer is yes, a new lowest unit rate window would again open for any rescheduled primary.

While some might contend that a second window for the same election is somehow unfair, it is not at all unprecedented.  In a number of states, such as Louisiana, candidates in some elections must receive a majority of the votes (50% plus one) to be declared the winner.  Thus, in an election, it is not uncommon for there to be no "winner" in the November election, with a run-off having to be held a month or two later.  In those cases, lowest unit rates apply to the run-off, just as they did to the initial election.  Of course, the window is only available to the candidates competing in the election at issue, so if Michigan were to reschedule a primary in June, only the Democratic presidential candidates would be entitled to the rate – while Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, could be required to pay full rates for any ads that he might choose to run in this same period.  For more information about political broadcasting issues, see our Political Broadcasting Guide, which can be found here.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by the FCC of the "fleeting expletives" case, where the Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the FCC actions fining stations for isolated incidents where a profanity was uttered on the air in a live program.  The cases stem from the Golden Globes and Billboard Music Awards, where over-exuberant winners let slip one of those words that you are not supposed to say on TV.  The Court of Appeals found that the FCC had not justified its departure from prior Commission decisions where such conduct was not sanctioned.  The Court also suggested that the Commission’s decisions did not give broadcasters enough guidance as to when the use of such words was permissible, and when it was prohibited.  We have written previously about this case a number of times, including here and here.  Should the Court determine that the FCC was justified in acting as it did, this may leave the FCC open to taking new actions in the indecency area – such as the suggestion that one Commissioner recently made that indecency enforcement in connection with video delivered to mobile phones should be explored.

 A couple of words about some of the commentary written about this case.  First, while many stories have stated that this is the first indecency case to reach the Supreme Court in 30 years since the famous Seven Dirty Words  ( or the Pacifica) case, in fact there have been several other more recent cases that have dealt with the indecency issue – though not in the broadcast context.  Cable and Internet indecency rules have been adopted by the FCC or by Congress, and usually overturned as not constituting the least restrictive manner of preventing children from being exposed to "indecent" speech – speech which is constitutionally protected (as opposed to obscenity which has no protection as it has no socially redeeming significance) – but from which children can be sheltered.  However, in the cable and Internet cases, the regulations have been overturned because there were other less restrictive means of limiting children’s access to the content, e.g. through filters or restrictions on access to specific channels or websites.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Agrees to Review Fleeting Expletives Case – Could FCC Extend Indeceny to Mobile Media?

At its December meeting, at the same time as it adopted rules relaxing the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules, the FCC adopted new rules to expand diversity in the ownership of broadcast stations, encouraging new entrants into such ownership.  The full text of that decision was just released last week, providing a number of specific rule changes adopted to promote diverse ownership, as well as a number of proposals for changes on which it requests further comment.  Comments on the proposed changes will be due 30 days after this order is published in the Federal Register.  As this proceeding involves extensive changes and proposals, we will cover it in two parts.  This post will focus on the rule changes that have already been made – a subsequent post will cover the proposed changes.  The new rules deal not only with ownership rule modifications, but also with issues of discrimination in the sale of broadcast stations and in the sale of advertising on broadcast stations, new rules that leave some important unanswered questions. 

The rules that the Commission adopted were for the benefit of "designated entities."  Essentially, to avoid constitutional issues of preferences based on race or gender, the definition of a designated entity adopted by the Commission is based on the size of the business, and not the characteristics of the owners.  A small business is one designated as such by the Small Business Administration classification system.  Essentially, a radio business is small if it had less than $6.5 million in revenue in the preceding year.  A television company is small if it had less than $13 million in revenues.  These tests take into account not only the revenue of the particular entity, but also entities that are under common control, and those of parent companies.  For FCC purposes, investment by larger companies in the proposed FCC licensee is permissible as long as the designated entity is in voting control of the proposed FCC licensee and meets one of three tests as to equity ownership: (1) the designated entity holds at least 30% of the equity of the proposed licensee, or (2) it holds at least 15% of the equity and no other person or entity holds more than 25%, or (3) in a public company, regardless of the equity ownership, the designated entity must be in voting control of the company.

Continue Reading FCC Takes Actions to Increase Diversity in Broadcast Ownership

A full year ago, the Copyright Royalty Board released its decision setting royalties for the use of sound recordings by Internet Radio webcasters (see various posts on the subject here).  As an article this week in the Boston Globe sets out, despite much talk of a post-decision settlement to lower the royalties set by the CRB that many Internet Radio operators claim will put their stations out of business, no such settlement has yet been announced.  And, in a week that brought about the transfer of the operations of one of the largest webcaster’s operations to a traditional radio company (as CBS took over operations of AOL’s Internet Radio service), appeals of the decision were filed with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  A busy week, but still no resolution of the Internet radio controversy.

Four separate appeals briefs were submitted to the Court.  One was a combined brief of the large Webcasters (represented by DiMA, the Digital Media Association) and the Small Webcasters(Accuradio, Radioio, Digitally Imported Radio, Radio Paradise), another was submitted by several commercial broadcast groups (Bonneville, the NAB and the National Religious Broadcasters Association) and a third by several noncommercial groups (including college broadcasters, NPR, and noncommercial religious broadcasters).  A final brief was submitted by Royalty Logic, a company that wants to become an alternative to SoundExchange as the collection agent for performers.  These briefs will be answered by the Department of Justice (defending the CRB and its decision before the Court) and SoundExchange.  The briefing process will continue for several months, with an oral argument to follow, quite possibly not until the Fall.  Thus, a decision in the case may well not be reached until 2009. 

Continue Reading A Year After the Webcasting Royalty Decision – No Settlement, Appeal Briefs Filed

In November, the FCC adopted an Order limiting to 10 the number of FM translators from the 2003 translator filing window that a single applicant could pursue.  This Order was adopted by the Commission at the urging of LPFM advocates who believed that the large number of FM translator applications filed in 2003 foreclosed some opportunities for new low power FM stations (see our description of the Order here).  Last week, the FCC released a Public Notice telling translator applicants to choose which 10 applications that they will continue to prosecute.  Applicants have until April 3 to make that choice and notify the Commission of their choice.  If no choice is made by that date, the FCC will continue to process the first 10 applications that were on file, dismissing any remaining applications by that applicant.

The Commission is expecting to then continue to process the remaining applications, opening a settlement window after the dismissal process is complete so that the remaining applicants can sort out possible engineering solutions or other settlements that would resolve conflicts between remaining mutually exclusive applications.  However, there are a number of Petitions for Reconsideration that were filed against the Order establishing the 10 application limit (including one filed by our firm on behalf of a number of clients).  We’ll see if the Commission takes any action on the Reconsideration petitions (and an accompanying Petition for Stay of the selection deadline) or if the Commission marches on and continues to process these applications.  For now, applicants should be ready to make their selections on or before April 3.

Continue Reading Deadline for FM Translator Applicants To Select 10 Applications to Continue to Prosecute

On Friday, the FCC released a Public Notice setting out several groups of applications for new noncommercial FM stations which are mutually exclusive with each other.  These applications were filed in the October window for new noncommercial FM stations (information about which can be found here).  According to the Public Notice, the identified groups are those where there are 4 or fewer applications which are mutually exclusive with each other.  The list can be found here.   The Commission is asking that applicants named on this list advise the Commission within 30 days whether the FCC’s determination of mutual exclusivity is correct, and also whether the named applicants anticipate reaching a settlement or share time agreement. If nothing is filed within that 30 day period, the Commission’s staff will start applying the point system to determine which of these applicants should be preferred and granted.

The Public Notice also makes clear that there are other applications which are part of larger mutually exclusive groups.  These applications will be dealt with at a later date.  The Commission has already processed over 800 other applications which were either granted as "singletons", not mutually-exclusive with other applications, or which were dismissed because the applicant exceeded the 5 station filing cap.  Thus, the FCC is moving quickly to process these applications for new noncommercial stations.  Applicants should carefully review their options in light of this new public notice. 

 

Although many TV stations are already airing PSAs and other programming designed to educate the public about the upcoming digital television transition, the FCC released an Order containing very specific requirements  for these educational initiatives.  These rules mandate public education efforts about the DTV transition by television broadcasters, multichannel video providers, and electronics manufacturers.  In addition, the new rules require that television stations file a quarterly report on a new form, FCC Form 388, with the FCC (that is also placed in the station’s public file and on its website) certifying compliance with the requirements of the rules and setting out specifics of other consumer educations efforts about the DTV transition that the station has undertaken.The requirements will become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, and continue through March 31, 2009, for all full power stations who complete the transition to their full DTV facilities by February 18, 2009.

The FCC has established three options for meeting the educational initiatives requirement, two of which are available to all TV stations, and one of which is available to noncommercial stations only.  Each has very specific mandates as to how many PSAs about the digital transition are required, and how much additional content (crawls, various over-lays onto programming, long-form programs) are required to meet the obligations.  Thus, broadcasters and others subject to these rules should review the specific requirements carefully.

Continue Reading FCC Announces DTV Consumer Education Requirements – Very Specific PSA Obligations Placed on Broadcasters

Federal Register publication of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Low Power FM (LPFM) stations and their relationship to FM translators and upgrades of full-power FM stations occurred today.  This sets the comment dates in that proceeding – with comments due April 7, and replies on April 21.  This proceeding looks at technical issues of whether LPFM stations (which were originally authorized as secondary stations, subject to being knocked off the air if they caused interference to full-power stations (including new stations or increases in the facilities of existing stations), should be protected against interference from such new FM facilities.  Also, the proceeding looks at whether LPFM should get a preference over FM translators, perhaps even being able to bump existing FM translators off the air to make way for new LPFM stations.  We wrote more about this proceeding, here.  FM station and FM translator licensees should be sure to file comments with the FCC on how this proceeding could affect their operations.

The FCC today released a Public Notice granting the request of several broadcast organizations for an extension of time to respond to the extensive proposals for re-regulating the broadcast industry contained in the FCC’s Localism Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  We wrote about those proposals, here.  Comments, which were to be filed next week, have now been extended, with a new due date of April 28.  Reply comments in the proceeding are now due on June 11.  Broadcasters should seriously consider filing comments in this proceeding (see our post here explaining how to file such comments), which could substantially affect the way that they do business, dramatically increasing the paperwork and regulatory burdens that they face.