In recent weeks, some of the radio trade magazines have been carrying coverage of the litigation between the Radio Music License Committee (RMLC) and ASCAP and BMI over the rates that will be paid by commercial radio broadcasters for the public performance of musical compositions that are licensed through these Performing Rights Organizations (PROs).   Negotiations over royalty rates are not new nor is the occasional litigation over those royalties However, because of changes in the law governing these processes, the arguments raised this year  are different and raise important new questions about what could be the first steps toward an entirely different, and perhaps fairer, process for resolving the royalties that broadcasters (and others) pay for the use of music.

What is different, and what are the arguments being made?  RMLC is arguing that the US District Court that oversees the antitrust consent decrees that govern ASCAP and BMI should consolidate the proceedings to determine the rates that broadcasters will pay, rather than considering those rates in separate proceedings.  If parties cannot agree with ASCAP and BMI as to the rates to be charged for the use of music for a particular purpose, a judge from the US District Court in the Southern District of New York conducts a proceeding as a “rate court” to determine a reasonable royalty rate, much as the Copyright Royalty Board does in establishing SoundExchange royalties for the digital public performance of sound recordings.  Because both the ASCAP and BMI agreements with the commercial radio industry have expired, proceedings are underway to determine the rates that radio will pay to these organizations. 

Continue Reading RMLC Requests Consolidation of ASCAP and BMI Proceeding on Radio Music Royalties – A Step Toward a Unified Process for Resolving All Music Royalty Issues? 

The Federal Election Commission last week voted to open for public comment the question of whether to start a rulemaking proceeding to declare that “deepfakes” or other AI technology used to generate false images of a candidate doing or saying something, without a disclosure that the image, audio or video, was generated by artificial intelligence and portrays fictitious statements and actions, violates the FEC’s rules.  The FEC rule that is allegedly being violated is one that prohibits a candidate or committee from fraudulently misrepresentating that they are “speaking or writing or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof on a matter which is damaging to such other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof.”  In other words, the FEC rule prohibits one candidate or committee from falsely issuing statements in the name of an opposing candidate or committee.  The FEC approved the Draft Notice of Availability to initiate the request for public comment on a second rulemaking petition filed by the group Public Citizen, asking for this policy to be adopted.  This Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register today, initiating the comment period.  The deadline for comments is October 16, 2023.  This is just a preliminary request for comments as to the merits of the Public Citizen petition, and whether the FEC should move forward with a more formal proceeding.

As we wrote in an article a few weeks ago, the FEC had a very similar Notice of Availability before it last month and took no action, after apparently expressing concerns that the FEC does not have statutory authority to regulate deliberately deceptive AI-produced content in campaign ads.  Apparently Public Citizen’s second petition adequately addressed that concern.  The Notice published in the Federal Register today at least starts the process, although it may be some time before any formal rules are adopted.  As we noted in our article, a few states have already taken action to require disclosures about AI content used in political ads, particularly those in state and local elections.  Thus far, there is no similar federal requirement. 

Continue Reading FEC Asks for Public Comment on Petition for Rulemaking on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Political Ads

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • The FCC released its Report and Order setting the annual regulatory fees that broadcasters must pay for 2023. The Order confirmed the FCC’s preliminary conclusion from its May Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reallocate the costs of some of its employees who did not perform services that affected broadcasting away from broadcast services, thus substantially lowering broadcast regulatory fees for 2023.  TV stations will pay approximately 12% less than last year.  Radio fees will also decrease.  Radio stations with the smallest service areas will see the biggest decreases, as the FCC added a new lower tier of fees for the radio stations covering the fewest people (those serving fewer than 10,000 people).  We summarized the FCC’s preliminary conclusions in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in our Broadcast Law Blog article, here.  We expect that, in the next few days, the FCC will issue a Public Notice announcing the dates for the payment window.  We also expect that, as in the past, the Media Bureau will release a fee filing guide for the broadcast services.
  • The Federal Election Commission voted to open for public comment the question of whether to start a rulemaking proceeding to declare that “deepfakes” or other AI technology used to generate false images of a candidate doing or saying something, without being labeled as not being true images of the candidate, violate the FEC’s rules against fraudulently issuing a statement on behalf of a candidate or committee.  The FEC approved the Draft Notice of Availability to initiate the request for public comment on a rulemaking petition asking for this policy to be adopted.  Comment dates will be announced in a future Federal Register notice.    
  • In separate decisions (available here and here), the FCC’s Media Bureau found that a licensee of two FM stations in Florida had failed to satisfy the FCC’s criteria for changing the stations’ communities of license from small communities within urbanized areas to the central city in their urbanized area.  While the stations’ current communities had no other services licensed to them, in prior cases, the FCC had approved intra-urbanized area city of license changes, finding that all stations in the urbanized area really served the entire urbanized area so a move from one community in the area to another was inconsequential (see our article here).  Here, the FCC distinguished those past cases, finding them different because there was improvement in population coverage from technical changes included in the proposals that had been approved, while the applicants here proposed no change in their technical facilities.  Thus, the Media Bureau concluded that without such a public service benefit, these city of license changes, even though they were within an urbanized area, would not be a preferred arrangement of FM allotments, and asked the applicants for more information on any benefits that would accrue from the proposed changes. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau entered into a Consent Decree with an Oklahoma FM station to resolve the station’s failure to seek FCC authorization to remain silent for more than 30 days.  The station had been silent for nearly twelve months, but failed to timely notify the FCC that it had discontinued operations and did not timely seek special temporary authority to remain silent.  The station also conceded that it had failed to timely upload material to its online public inspection file.  The station agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5,000 to the US Treasury and implement a compliance plan to guard against future violations of its public file obligations.
  • The Media Bureau issued two decisions resolving mutually exclusive applications in its 2021 reserved band NCE FM filing window.
    • In one, it reaffirmed its selection of the tentative selectee for a construction permit for a new NCE FM station at Grand Forks, North Dakota, and its rejection of a competing applicant for that facility.  The Bureau found that the competing applicant had failed to claim points under the NCE comparative criteria at the time it filed its application, as required for any such claims to be credited.  The Bureau also found that the winning applicant had properly certified that there was no contour overlap between its proposed facility and its other stations, even though one exhibit in its application with a sentence that contradicted that claim, finding that the contradictory statement should be ignored as it was a scrivener’s error that was itself contradicted not only by the certification but by other maps and statements in the application.  Thus, the applicant was entitled to points under the diversity of ownership criterion and to be preferred over the applicant whose points claims came after the time for making such claims had passed.
    • In another case, the Bureau rescinded its selection of the tentative selectee for a construction permit for a new NCE FM station at West Lake, Florida and instead selected a competing applicant for the same facility at Cross City, Florida, who had petitioned the FCC to deny the West Lake application.  The Bureau found that the competing applicant was not entitled to the preference with which it had previously been credited for providing a first NCE service to a greater portion of its coverage area than competing applicants because it had failed to account for an FM station at Live Oak, Florida that was operating on commercial channel that had actually been reserved for NCE operation (in an NCE 307(b) coverage analysis, a preference is given to an applicant providing greater first NCE coverage it an area. In determining whether there is other NCE service in the area, only reserved-noncommercial stations are counted as providing such service).  The Live Oak station, even though it was operating on a commercial frequency, was operating on a channel that had been specifically reserved by the FCC for noncommercial use, and thus should have been counted in the analysis of other NCE stations in the service area of the applicant).
  • In separate decisions (available here, here, here, here, and here), the Bureau proposed to impose fines ranging from $1,500 to $3,000 on licensees of low power television stations and television translators in California, Michigan, Montana and Oregon for failing to timely file their license renewal applications.
  • The FCC issued a Public Notice seeking public comment on a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the licensee of three El Paso, TX radio stations, asking the FCC to find that it would serve the public interest to allow the licensee to accept foreign investment in excess of the 25% benchmarks set forth in section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act by permitting a Mexican citizen to hold 100% of the equity and voting interests in the licensee’s controlling U.S. parent company. 
  • The Bureau issued a Hearing Designation Order to commence a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge to determine whether Antonio Cesar Guel, the former president and 100% direct owner of Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. (HCCN), the prior licensee of a total of seven low power television stations in five different states, misrepresented material facts and orchestrated an illusory transaction to transfer the stations to his niece.  The Order states that the record developed thus far “raises substantial and material questions” as to whether Guel’s niece really controls the stations or whether HCCN and/or Guel actually exercise control over the stations, and whether HCCN, Guel, and Guel’s niece engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor before the FCC.  The Order ultimately seeks to determine (a) whether the licenses of the stations should be revoked; (b) whether the applications for renewal of the licenses of the stations should be granted, dismissed or denied; and/or (c) whether a fine should be assessed against Guel’s niece.

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • FEMA and the FCC announced that this year’s Nationwide EAS Test is scheduled for October 4, 2023 (with a back-up date of October 11 in case there is a real or threatened emergency event around October 4).  FEMA will transmit the nationwide test of the EAS at 2:20 pm EDT on October 4, 2023, using the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), the Internet-delivered warning system that has been required for broadcasters for about a dozen years. The test will be disseminated in English and Spanish as a Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) message using the Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System (NPT) code.  FEMA issued a Release announcing the test.  The FCC issued a much more extensive Public Notice which includes a list of recommended steps that broadcasters should take to prepare for the test.  The FCC Public Notice also reminds broadcasters that, by September 15, 2023, they should review and update, if necessary, their Form One information in ETRS.   Form One should have been filed by all broadcasters by February 28, 2023 (with some limited exemptions for translators and satellite stations) to provide the FCC with basic identifying information about the broadcaster and its EAS equipment.  The FCC Public Notice provides more details on ETRS filings, including the Form Two and Form Three filings due after the test to report on its results.  For more information, see our Broadcast Law Blog article here.
  • The FCC adopted its Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing changes to the digital audio broadcasting rules to facilitate greater digital FM radio coverage.  The NPRM was issued in response to two petitions for rulemaking filed jointly by NAB and other parties (available here and here), asking the FCC to permit increased FM digital effective radiated power beyond the existing levels and to allow a digital FM station to operate with asymmetric power on the digital sidebands (for more details about these petitions, see our article here).  The FCC has tentatively concluded that both proposals have merit, and thus seeks comment on a number of specific questions including when a station can seek higher digital power without submitting a contour analysis or otherwise seeking Commission prior approval; whether stations planning asymmetrical side bands need to give notice to adjacent channel stations; whether there is a risk of interference to lower powered FM stations, secondary stations (LPFMs and translators), and even broadband operators who suggest possible interference to equipment that they operate on FM channels; and whether any potential interference calls for limits on the proposed rule changes.  Comments and reply comments on the NPRM will be due 30 days and 45 days, respectively, after the item is published in the Federal Register. 
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau announced the rules for the application filing window for new LPFM stations that is to open on November 1, 2023.  These rules will govern the processing and preparation of the applications.  Importantly, the Bureau also stated in the same announcement that, beginning September 1, 2023, it will impose a freeze on the filing of applications for changes in the facilities of FM translators and existing LPFM stations.  The freeze is meant to provide a stable database so that applicants in the LPFM window can accurately determine where there are available channels, and where there are stations or applications that need to be protected from interference.  The freeze will remain in effect at least until the end of the LPFM window on November 8, 2023. See our blog article here for more information.
  • The Media Bureau issued an Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture proposing to fine a Louisiana FM translator licensee $12,500 for purportedly failing to file the form required to obtain consent to change antennas, constructing and operating with an unauthorized antenna for approximately two months, and falsely certifying to construction as authorized.  The station had commenced operations with an antenna that had not been authorized by its construction permit and filed a license application certifying that the station had been built with the technical specifications in that permit. The Bureau was not persuaded to excuse the conduct by the licensee’s explanation that its originally authorized directional antenna arrived damaged, and, believing the repairs would not take long, it commenced operation with an unauthorized omnidirectional antenna at the same site at substantially lower power, not recognizing the legal significance of substituting the antenna even for a relatively brief period of time.
  • The Federal Election Commission announced its agenda for its August 10, 2023 meeting where it will consider whether to ask for public comment on a proposal to require the labeling of political ads that use Artificial Intelligence.  For more information, see its staff’s proposal on the matter.  We recently wrote on our blog about regulation of the use of Artificial Intelligence in political advertising.
  • On our blog this week, we provided more details of the Court of Appeals decision rejecting appeals of the Copyright Royalty Board’s 2021 decision setting webcasting royalty rates for 2021-2025.  We also posted our look at the regulatory dates of importance to broadcasters in August and early September.  

FEMA and the FCC announced that this year’s Nationwide EAS Test is scheduled for October 4, 2023 (with a back-up date of October 11 in case there is a real or threatened event that occurs around October 4).  FEMA will transmit the nationwide test of the EAS at 2:20 pm EDT on October 4, 2023 using the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), the Internet-delivered warning system that has been required for broadcasters for about a dozen years. The test will be disseminated in English and Spanish as a Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) message using the Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System (NPT) code.  FEMA issued a Release announcing the test.  The FCC issued a much more extensive Public Notice which includes a list of recommended steps that broadcasters should take to prepare for the alert, and a reminder for broadcasters to be sure that their information in the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) is accurate and up-to-date. 

While the steps recommended by the FCC to prepare for the test are all somewhat obvious, they should still be reviewed by broadcasters to make sure that they have not overlooked anything that can enhance their preparation for the test.  Among the recommendations from the FCC are that the broadcaster review their role in their state’s EAS plan, and make sure that their equipment and software has been updated to the most current versions. The FCC also suggests making sure the EAS clock on station EAS equipment is synchronized with the official time used by the National Institute of Standards and Technology which is used by the IPAWS system.  Having an accessible EAS Official Handbook and reviewing the handbook for instructions on the operation of the EAS system is also on the FCC’s list.

Continue Reading Nationwide EAS Test Set for October 4 – Start Your Preparations Now

The FCC’s Media Bureau this week issued a Public Notice announcing the rules for filing applications for new Low Power FM stations during a filing window that will open on November 1 and close on November 8, 2023 at 6 PM EST.  As part of that announcement of the rules for the preparation and processing of applications to be submitted in the filing window, the Media Bureau stated that a freeze on the filing of applications for changes in the facilities of FM translators and existing LPFM stations would go into effect on September 1, 2023.  Thus, if you are planning any technical changes to any FM translator, or any change in an existing LPFM, file before midnight EST on August 31, 2023 to avoid processing delays.  The freeze will be in effect at least until the end of the LPFM filing window on November 8, 2023. 

The freeze is meant to provide a stable database so that applicants in the LPFM window can accurately determine where there are available channels, and where there are stations or applications that need to be protected from interference.  The Public Notice emphasizes that LPFM applications must protect all existing FM stations, all FM translators and LPFMs, and all translator and LPFM applications filed and accepted by the FCC by the end of August before the freeze goes into effect.

Continue Reading Looking at the Rules for the November Window for Filing for New LPFM Stations – and the September 1 Freeze on Changes in Existing FM Translator and LPFM Facilities

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision last week rejecting all of the appeals of the decision by the Copyright Royalty Board (“CRB”) setting the rates that noninteractive webcasters pay to SoundExchange for the digital public performance of sound recordings in the period 2021-2025 (see our article here on the 2021 CRB decision).  As detailed below, the Court rejected appeals from three parties, two that argued that the rates were set too high for specific classes of webcasters, and one from SoundExchange itself which argued that the rates should have been even higher.

As a reminder, the CRB rates apply to all companies who provide a non-interactive, internet-delivered steam of programming which includes recorded music or other audio content, including broadcasters who simulcast their over-the-air programming on the internet.  Congress established the process of setting rates through hearings by the CRB so that noninteractive webcasters would have access to all recorded and publicly released audio recordings without having to individually negotiate with each copyright holder (see our article here about the CRB’s responsibilities).  Services pay these “statutory royalties” to SoundExchange, observe certain requirements that limit how often particular recordings are played so as to not make the services a substitute for buying recordings or listening to them through on-demand services (which pay higher royalties negotiated directly with the copyright holder), and report to SoundExchange what they play.  SoundExchange collects the royalties and uses the reports of what the services played to distribute the royalties they collect.  One-half of the royalties collected go to the performers on the sound recording, and one-half to the copyright holders of the recording, usually the record labels that own the copyrights for sound recordings.

Continue Reading Court Rejects Appeals of Copyright Royalty Board Decision on 2021-2025 Webcasting Royalties

August may be a light month for regulatory dates, as everyone enjoys the end of the summer with many, including Congress, taking the last of their summer vacations.  But there are still dates to which broadcasters should be paying attention.  One that most commercial broadcasters should be anticipating is the order that will set the amount of their Annual Regulatory Fees, to be paid sometime in September before the October 1 start of the federal government’s new fiscal year.  Sometime in August (or possibly in the first days of September), the FCC will make a final determination on the amount of the fees, and then announce the deadlines for the payment of the fees.  As we wrote here, the FCC has proposed to decrease fees for broadcasters from the amounts paid in prior years, but there have been some comments filed in opposition to that proposal. An Order concerning regulatory fees is currently on circulation among FCC Commissioners, so watch for the FCC decision making a final determination on those fees.

August has other routine regulatory deadlines.   August 1 is the deadline for Radio and Television Station Employment Units in California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin with 5 or more full-time employees to upload to their online public inspection file their Annual EEO Public File Report. A station employment unit is a station or cluster of commonly controlled stations serving the same general geographic area having at least one common employee.  For employment units with 5 or more full-time employees, the annual report covers hiring and employment outreach activities for the prior year.  A link to the uploaded report must also be included on the home page of each station’s website, if the station has a website. 

Continue Reading August Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters:  Reg Fee Order, EEO filings, HD Power Increase Proposal, and More

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • On July 28, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion rejecting appeals of the Copyright Royalty Board’s (“CRB”) decision that set the 2021-2025 royalty rates that non-interactive webcasters must pay to SoundExchange for the digital public performance of sound recordings (see our Broadcast Law Blog article here for more on the CRB’s 2021 decision). These rates apply to all companies that provide a non-interactive internet-delivered stream of programming that includes recorded music, including broadcast simulcasters. There were three appeals before the Court.  NAB argued that broadcast simulcasters should pay a lower royalty rate than webcasters who provide a custom radio service allowing some control over the music that they hear.  As the simulcast listener cannot influence what songs they will be hearing (because the broadcaster is making those decisions), the NAB argued, simulcasters are not as much of a substitution for users buying music or using on demand services that pay higher royalties as are custom radio services where the user can influence, though not guarantee, the songs that they will hear. NRB-NMLC (the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music Licensing Committee) argued that their rates should have been lower as the CRB should have used the rates set for NPR as a benchmark to set rates for other noncommercial broadcasters, including noncommercial religious broadcasters. SoundExchange argued that the rates should have been even higher than those set by the CRB.  The Court found that none of these arguments merited reversal of the CRB’s decision, noting the high deference courts must give to decisions of an expert agency, particularly on technical issues like those explored by the CRB in this case.  Even though these appeals were pending, the rates went into effect in 2021 following the 2021 CRB decision.  Thus, this Court decision will not change the royalties that webcasters should already be paying.  Watch our Broadcast Law Blog for more details on this decision early next week.
  • Congress is currently considering the Communications, Video, and Technology Accessibility Act (CVTA) that would expand the FCC’s authority to require accessible video programming both on television and online.  The existing law (i.e., the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act) defines what programming must have closed captioning and audio description (providing an audio track that describes the visual action in a television program) and sets out requirements for making communications equipment accessible.  On July 25, Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Barbara Eshoo introduced a revised version of the CTVA that substantially changes the prior version (see Senator Markey’s statement here citing the need to adopt new legislation to cover all platforms, including online platforms and video conferencing services).  If adopted, the CVTA as revised would, among other things, do the following:
    • Narrow the scope of closed captioning and audio description obligations on Internet Protocol-delivered (i.e., online) video to only English and Spanish-language video programming. 
    • Add obligations to ensure that closed captioning and audio description data remain with the video programming, and is provided in common formats, so that it is accessible wherever the content is viewed.
    • Add obligations for all devices that receive or play back video programming to include user interfaces that are accessible to individuals with vision, mobility, and speech disabilities (instructions and prompts on how to operate the device cannot be accessible only through text or other visual means).
    • For platforms that allow for the posting of user-generated content, the platform must provide technology for users to caption and do audio descriptions of their programming.  The platforms should also prompt users to add closed captioning and audio description to the content that they upload.
    • The audio description rules would be revised to include, to the extent practicable, requirements for audio description to convey, in the same language as the audio, the content of open subtitles if the subtitles convey information relevant to the program that is not conveyed in the audio of the program (presumably meant to require audio description to read subtitles if, for instance, those subtitles translated the audio of a foreign language used in isolated segments of a program where the audio is otherwise in English or Spanish).

These changes would be made to a bill that includes many additional new requirements for captioning and audio description of broadcast and online video.  If adopted by Congress and signed into law, the legislation requires the formation of a committee to recommend specific timetables and rules for implementation of these obligations.  The Committee will report to the FCC within a year of the adoption of the legislation, so that the FCC can adopt final rules implementing the legislation. 

  • The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation approved the AM For Every Vehicle Act, passing it on to the full Senate for a vote (see statement of Senator Cruz, the Ranking Republican member of the Committee, applauding the Committee’s action).  As we wrote when the legislation was first introduced, if adopted, the Act would require that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a rulemaking proceeding, to be completed within one year, to mandate that AM be included in all cars sold in the US as a standard feature, without any additional cost to new car buyers.  In addition, until the effective date of the new rule, the seller of any car without an AM radio would have to provide “clear and conspicuous labeling” to inform any buyer that the car does not have an AM radio.  The bill would also require the Government Accountability Office to study whether there was any other available technology to replicate the reach and effectiveness of AM in delivering emergency alerts to the public.  In a statement released on July 27, FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks “applaud[ed] Congress for its bipartisan action to ensure the continued reception of AM signals in all vehicles.”  Before becoming effective, not only is full Senate approval required, but House approval is also necessary (the bill has not yet been approved by the relevant House committee).  There currently is no timetable as to when the bill will be considered by the full Senate or by the House. 

Last week, at its regular monthly open meeting, the FCC resolved an issue that has been pending for years – what to do about Low Power TV stations operating on Channel 6 that use their audio to provide a radio service that can be heard on most radios at 87.7 -below the 88.1 official start of the FM dial, but still accessible on most FM radios.  The Report and Order dealing with this issue also resolved, at least for the time being, two other issues related to TV channel 6.  First, the FCC rejected a proposal to use channel 6 spectrum for FM radio in areas of the country where the spectrum is not being used for TV purposes.  The other issue that was resolved, at least temporarily, was a proposal to modify or abandon the protections that noncommercial educational (NCE) stations operating in the reserved NCE band (between 88.1 and 91.9 on the FM dial) must provide to nearby TV stations operating on channel 6.  While LPTVs providing FM service may have received the most attention in the trade press since the adoption of the order, those other two issues may actually have broader significance, and received less attention, so it is worth looking at all of the issues resolved by the FCC’s order. 

The Franken FMs, or “FM6” stations as the FCC referred to them, have been in existence for well over a decade (see, for instance, our articles here and here).  The “Franken FM” moniker was adopted seemingly because the service provided by these stations was stitched together from the use of LPTV stations that were in many markets all but dead economically, to provide a radio service that, in some cases, was quite vibrant.  Until 2021, the service from these stations was just a byproduct of analog TV’s use of an audio transmission standard compatible with FM radio on TV channel 6 spectrum, which is immediately adjacent to the bottom of the FM band.  In other parts of the world, FM extends below 88.1 so most FM receivers can be tuned to 87.7, the frequency on which these LPTV stations send their audio signals.  But when the July 2021 deadline came for LPTV stations to go fully digital, the analog FM audio was no longer part of their transmissions, so these stations had to come up with a hybrid system that transmitted their video signals (and the audio accompanying that video programming) in a digital format, but allowed the audio FM signals to also be transmitted in an analog format that FM radios could still receive.  The FCC allowed a limited number of stations to provide this hybrid service in conjunction with their conversion to ATSC 3.0 TV transmissions after their digital conversion, but until the recent order, only on a special temporary authority (STA) basis with a number of restrictions.  The recent order makes these station’s operations permanent, and lifts many of the restrictions.

Continue Reading TV Channel 6 – FCC Resolves Franken FM and Broader Questions of FM Use, But Issues About Interference from Reserved Band FM Stations Remain